Department of Justice and Constitutional Development 2019/20 Quarter 2 & 3 performance, with Deputy Minister

This premium content has been made freely available

Justice and Correctional Services

19 February 2020
Chairperson: Mr G Magwanishe (ANC)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

The Department of Justice and Constitutional Development, with a delegation including the Deputy Minister and other departmental officials, gave four presentations – including its audit outcome turnaround strategy, performance report, 2nd and 3rd quarterly financial as well as its employee relations report.

The Members pointed out that the presentation did not adequately outline the detail and risks of the audit outcome turnaround strategy nor did it indicate its timeline. This implied that there was no body monitoring its processes. This strategy was unbounded and could be too elastic, spanning across multiple financial years.

The Members also raised the matter of the sexual offences courts. The Department should also have qualitative data on the impact of these courts and the impact they had. When are the courts going to be made blueprint-compliant? The Department needed to decide what to prioritise in its expenditure. Prioritising was a difficult exercise but it needed to be done. Members would like to see what the major priorities were in terms of outcomes – they specifically requested courts to all be compliant with all the new regulations. How is the reliability of the information database of sexual offenders, now that children are protected against sexual offenders? What is the fast-tracking process there? The administration has got to be reading for the new amendments and legislation. What was the capacitation plan of the Department? What is the specific action plan on National Action Plan (NAP)?

Members noted that only one of the planned six projects had commenced while the others were delayed by the Department of Public Works and Infrastructure. It was important for the Committee to get the details as to what those projects were supposed to be and why they were delayed. Shifting funds did not necessarily imply that there was underspending in the original budget. Even the Minister of Public Works said she spent time in the courts and now it was a priority of hers to prevent underspending. Therefore it was worrisome to learn that five out of the six big infrastructure projects were now being delayed. The Committee needed more pertinent information of this issue.

The Members commented on the presentation on misconduct. Some of the old targets had not been met. There was word that there were officials who had been suspended not for months and years on end, pending disciplinary action. The presentation needed to provide more information on the outstanding cases. It would be good to get more information of the progress on Bills that dealt with gender-based violence, as the President announced in the State of the Nation Address.

The Chairperson said that the state of the Department was still worrying. The turnaround plan should not only focus on the financial outcomes but also deal with service delivery. People were not necessarily interested in administrative processes but were interested in meaningful outcomes. Going forward, the Committee would be calling the Department to present on more specific topics and to dress specific issues. The Department needed to be better prepared next time so that there would be alignment from the political and the administrative side of the Department.

Meeting report

Opening Remarks by the Chairperson

The Chairperson welcomed the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development, most notably the Deputy Minister, Mr John Jeffery, and the Acting Director-General (ADG), Adv JB Skosana.

The Chairperson said that the Committee had changed its presentation process and now preferred limiting presentations to 15 minutes so as to spare time for a robust discussion. This would be helped by entities sending their presentations to the Committee beforehand.

Mr Q Dyantyi (ANC) asked the Deputy Minister and the ADG why the Department did not send its presentation to the Committee sooner, when it knew about this meeting on 13 February 2020.

Deputy Minister Jeffery echoed that it was important for the Department to distribute documents timeously. The Committee also needed to be more reasonable – presentation documents could not be available immediately because they often needed input from various people. The Department would appreciate earlier notices from the Committee for summons to Parliament.

The Chairperson responded that the Committee would improve how it circulated its programme to the Departments and associated entities.

Adv H Mohamed (ANC) suggested that once the programmes of the Committee had been communicated the timeline would begin. It was challenging to receive the documents on the night before the presentation – having to go over them in such a short space of time.

Mr Dyantyi accepted the Chairperson’s ruling but did not accept the reasons given by the Department and called them unacceptable. The Department had the whole weekend to prepare for the meeting; it had top level management who were highly paid. There was no reason why the Members had to get a document on the day before the meeting.

The Chairperson proclaimed that the Committee would communicate more timeously and, in turn, expected to receive documents on time.

Mr Jeffery stressed the need for the Committee to be reasonable. The officials were not just there to respond to Parliament; they were running a Department and crucial sections. His appeal was for the Committee to ensure that it gave reasonable notice. He then handed over to the ADG to deliver the presentation.

Presentation by the Department on the Audit Turnaround Strategy

Adv JB Skosana presented the turnaround strategy of the Department. The presentation addressed two areas of concern in the Department – financial management and performance management.

Under financial management the state of asset management and contingent liabilities were discussed. Under performance management the state of the Court, Masters and State Attorney Services were all discussed. The nine pillars of the turnaround interventions included: exco oversight, guidance and directives, technical support, data validation and quality assurance, inspection, pre-audit readiness, stakeholder engagement, and audit facilitation. The project objectives and key role players in the turnaround strategy were also discussed.

Discussion

Mr X Nqola (ANC) said that he thought the presentation would detail specifically how the Department would deal with the Masters office, which was embroiled with issues of fraud, corruption and maladministration as well as the issues of misconduct within the State Attorney Services.

Mr W Horn (DA) recognised that the Department was mainly focused on obtaining a clean audit. He asked how the Department would maintain a balance between trying to improve the levels of service while working towards a clean audit. A proper turnaround strategy could not only focus on financial and audit outcomes; it also needed to include service delivery operations. In certain cases, these operations could help prevent irregular expenditure. What is being done to improve services? The Department needed to go back and progress with the financial turnaround strategy needed to put equal emphasis on maintaining and improving service delivery.

Ms N Maseko-Jele (ANC) said that there had been many reports from the media on the Masters Office. The ADG should give the Committee more information on the office so that the Committee could see how best to intervene and assist. Has the Department met any of its turnaround strategy targets? If not, what were the reasons?

Mr Dyantyi asked if the Deputy Minister saw the presentation on the turnaround strategy beforehand. If he did, was the Department pleased with what was presented? Some of the presentation slides were filled with information and difficult to read; these could have been spread across multiple slides.

Mr Dyantyi pointed out that R1.8 billion worth of assets were unaccounted for and another R2.3 billion was incurred on contingent liabilities. The bulk of the latter came from the litigation costs and claims against the State. Under asset management of the 10 areas being considered, only two were being appropriately addressed. Under contingent liabilities, the Department was happy with only four of the nine problem areas it had identified. Under court services, only two out of the seven targeted areas were in a positive state. How is the Department planning to address these issues?

The presentation did not adequately outline the risks of the turnaround strategy nor did it indicate its timeline. This implied that there was no body monitoring its processes. This strategy was unbounded and could be too elastic, spanning across multiple financial years.

The Department’s financial performance was questionable. The Department was once a leader in its sector. There was a turnaround strategy in 2013-2014 which unsuccessful but the Department seemingly did not learn anything from that; things got worse. The Department needed to provide a diagnosis of why its performance declined over the years.

Adv G Breytenbach (DA) pointed out that presentation document that the Department submitted to the Committee was not in colour. This made the presentation difficult to read and follow and was an inconvenience for the Members; although she had a bit of background in this area, she also found it difficult to follow.

Under the contingent liabilities section, she could not differentiate points four and six. What was the difference between those two points in which they award themselves green? The Committee had raised serious issues with the performance management of the Court Services, Masters Services and State Attorney Services for years but the Department seemed to have turnaround strategy that looked cosmetic; it did not demonstrate anything about providing proper leadership. There was nothing in the presentation about putting people in place to make sure that the turnaround strategy works. These offices needed to have competent individuals. For decades the State Attorney Services had been falling apart and there was nothing in the strategy that addressed the problems in the office.

On asset management, she asked who the Department had transferred and appointed to address the management vacuum. The turnaround strategy looked cosmetic and she was not sure how the Department was going to make it work. Success in a turnaround strategy does not just depend on a top structure. It depended on what the Department would do at the lower structures as well. Where are the transfer and secondment of technical and operational experts coming from? There were a lot of good points on the turnaround strategy but there were a lot of points that concerned her deeply.

Adv H Mohamed (ANC) said that under the nine pillars of the turnaround strategy the Department should consider adding leadership as another pillar. He asked for clarity on whether to proceed with all of his questions. He had a number of questions on the turnaround strategy as it related to the Auditor-General’s findings.

The Chairperson said he should wait till later and that the Committee should focus on the turnaround strategy for now.

Adv Mohamed said that certain aspects of the turnaround strategy needed to have their own presentation. For example, the state of the Masters Office required its own presentation that would do it better justice.

The Deputy Minister said that the he and the Minister had not been briefed on the turnaround strategy. The presentation was premature and the Department was out of date with the strategy. As the Executive, they were not fully looped in and so the ADG was better suited to account on it.

The Chairperson said that the Committee would want a situation where there was political ownership of a strategy so it would hold the Ministers and Department accountable on the basis of that ownership. The Committee took responsibility that the invitation was only communicated to the Department last week Thursday but the questions and inputs of Members should still influence the shaping of the strategy. The Department should take into consideration the points raised by the Committee.

Adv Breytenbach acknowledged that giving the Department notice of the meeting today, given the nature of today’s meeting, was short notice and unreasonable. While the Committee had oversight over the Department it also had responsibility to communicate timeously. The Committee should not adopt an attitude where it would decide to arbitrarily see Departments and demand their presence. The officials all had important day jobs. To abandon what they do, in an effort to come to come to Parliament to satisfy the Committee’s demands, was not helpful. The Committee and the Department had wasted the morning on a document that had not yet been finalised. Perhaps the delegation should not answer the questions today but use them in finalising the strategy. In order to bring a more finalised product that the Committee could engage more with more fruitfully. The Committee needed to review its programme and communicate it timeously.

Mr Dyantyi said that the Committee should not delay the process. The Department was present and there were other presentations still to be given. Whether the Deputy Minister had seen the quarterly presentation beforehand was irrelevant because the Committee wanted to hear it today. In the previous meeting with the Department in November 2019, the Minister said he was not happy with the audit outcomes. He then instructed a turnaround strategy which this Committee supported. What was being presented today was a plan championed by the Minister. The Committee should also ask the Minister to give his opinion about the strategy because it was his responsibility. The Department had a responsibility to tell the Chairperson that they were not ready for a meeting or a presentation. The Department could not just waste money coming to Parliament if they were not ready. They could have made an appeal to the Committee, saying that the Ministry had not seen the strategy. The Department was at liberty to accept the inputs made by Members or to reject them.

Ms Maseko-Jele supported the view that the Committee needed to ease the pressure on the Department so it could have a mutually beneficial relationship – where the Committee was able to communicate in a manner that allowed everyone to freely contribute and achieve their goals. The Department should continue with their presentations, indicating its strengths and growth areas. The Committee wanted the Department to succeed and any criticism levelled against it was meant to be helpful.

The Chairperson said the difficulty may be in the questions that were related to policy implications without the directions of the Ministry. The Committee should prioritise questions that it knew could be answered – like issues of disciplinary matters and organisational realignment. For other issues, time would be given for the Department officials to confer with the Minister. The Committee should give the Department more time to improve the turnaround strategy.

Adv Mohamed raised a point on procedure. The Department should only highlight the key areas when presenting to the Committee because more time should be spent on discussions and not on the presentation itself.

The Chairperson said that it would be important for the Department to highlight the key areas and then the Committee could ask questions.

Responses

Adv Skosana welcomed the guidance and direction received from the Committee. The Department had presented a summarised version of the turnaround strategy that should be understood in correlation to the performance report which would be presented. The reason why the strategy documents were on one page was because it would become a spreadsheet that the Department put on its office walls. There would be detailed presentations given on each aspect of the strategy so that it could be explained thoroughly. Today was not a waste because the Department, through the questions posed by the Committee, had amassed a lot of wisdom and guidance.

Presentation by the Department of Justice on the Performance Report

Ms Lebo Mphahlele-Ntsasa, Chief Director: Strategy of the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development, gave the presentation of the performance against spending. The performance report covered the performance of the Department in the second and third quarter. The presentation detailed the targets achieved by the Department and the targets that still needed to be achieved.

Presentation by the Department of Justice on the 2nd and 3rd Quarterly financial report

Ms Louraine Rossouw, Chief Financial Officer, Department of Justice and Constitutional Development, gave the presentation on the second and third quarterly report. The report detailed the Department’s expenditure on programmes during the financial year of 2018/19 and then compared to 2019/20.

Presentation by the Department of Justice on Vacancies

Adv Skosana gave the presentation on SMS vacancies in the Department. The overall Department vacancy rate as of 31 January 2020 was 6.6%. The vacancy rate on SMS was 22.6%, which translated to 40 SMS vacancies for levels 13 to 16, as of 31 January 2020. The report went on to detail the positions that were still vacant and in which provinces had the vacancies. The dates of the shortlisting and interviews for each vacancy were given. The recruitment action plan for filling the key SMS positions were also discussed.

Presentation by the Department of Justice on the Employee Relations Report

Mr Donald Mpholo, ADG, Court Services, gave the Employee Relations Report. The presentation detailed the cases of misconduct and grievances. Of the 285 cases of misconduct, 156 cases were finalised. Of the 323 cases of grievances 193 were finalised. The report went through the different categories of misconduct and grievances and the branches that these issues were located in. The presentation also touched on the challenges facing the Department in relation to the cases of misconduct and grievances. Certain recommendations were also provided by the Department.

Discussion

Mr Dyantyi said that the Department needed an augmented turnaround strategy because it was in a big crisis. The Department needed to admit that it would not meet its projected targets. The Department was a soft target for taking money away and making budget cuts. The Deputy Minister said that the new Director-General (DG) was likely to be appointed in April. My Dyantyi said that if he were on the panel interviewing for the DG vacancy he would ask the candidate how they would help with the turnaround of the Department.

There was a prominence of irregular instances but it was unclear what contributed to these instances. The health of the Department was in a different space. The Department took too long between sending out the advertisements for positions and then shortlisting of candidates. For example, the Department sent out an advertisement for the position of Regional Head of the Western Cape in July 2019 but the shortlisting process was only going to be done in March 2020. There was no reason for the shortlisting to take six months. When appointing the Deputy Public Protector, Parliament only took three months.

Everyone needed to agree that there was a lot of work that needed to be done. There were many slides, which seemed to indicate better performance than the previous year. If they were unpacked further it would be seen that it was because of better recruitment and not any fundamental healthy change to the Department. It seemed as if the next annual report would be worse than the current one.

Adv Mohamed raised an issue on leadership and accountability in the Department with regards to expenditure. The Department should elaborate on the shifting of funds, from capital infrastructure to address challenges, which would be approved in the third quarter. What would the implications be? Does the Department have a contingency plan for this?

The Department reported in October 2019 that there was going to be an IGS Board meeting to have special engagement with the DGs at the time. Has this meeting taken place? The Committee hardly got reports on the outputs of IGS. He would like to receive an update on the position of DG of Constitutional Development. Had that position been filled?

Was the condition of the corporate services attributed to the vacancies within the division? Were there other areas where targets were not being met? The Committee did not hear anything on the organisation review process. There could not be a turnaround strategy without an organisation review.

He also raised the matter of the sexual offences courts. The Department should also have qualitative data on the impact of these courts and the impact they had. When are the courts going to be made blueprint-compliant? The Department needed to decide what to prioritise in its expenditure. Prioritising was a difficult exercise but it needed to be done. He would like to see what the major priorities were in terms of outcomes. His specific request on the sexual offences courts was that they were all compliant with all the new regulations.

He then raised the issue of the database reliability of information on sexual offenders. How is it, now that children are protected against sexual offenders? What is the fast-tracking process there? The administration has got to be reading for the new amendments and legislation. What was the capacitation plan of the Department? What is the specific action plan on National Action Plan (NAP)?

The Committee also needed clarity on the chief litigating officer. The Department needed to provide clarity on the recruitment and advertising process of the position of Chief Litigating Officer because it did not make sense. The Department should also provide more information on the resource for the Solicitor-General office; what was the support for this office? The appointment of the head of supply chain management (SCM) was also critical.

Adv Breytenbach asked what caused the delay in filling the various posts. Why did these issues arise and what are the difficulties? She then raised an issue on strategies to prevent underspending. Funds were being shifted from capital infrastructure to address challenges. From what capital infrastructure are the funds being shifted? For what are they being used for and why? Was the Committee going to be updated on the two donor funding projects that had been completed? What was the outcome of those projects? Was the Committee going to see the report which was completed December 2019?

She then commented the Department on its audit turnaround and stabilisation plan. What targets have been met as of today and what was the timeframe? What targets had not been met and why? Are there any consequences of not meeting targets and if so what are they? What are the current order issues of concern that are not addressed that will result in the Department receiving a fourth quarter audit? There was also quite a lot of irregular expenditure. What was the consequence management around those issues? What is being done to deal with it?

Mr Nqola pointed out that the unavailability of court staff went against the principle of access to justice for all. There was an urgent need for attention to be paid to the challenge of court backlogs. In the second quarterly report the Minister indicated a desire to move towards a digitalised Department. By the looks of things the Department was still far from realising that because of the many challenges it was still facing.

Ms W Newhoudt-Druchen (ANC) made an appeal that documents should be sent early. It was very difficult for her to read and look at the interpreter at the same time.

In relation to what was said about infrastructure and court maintenance, with the shifting of funds, how will the Department deal with the problems in the courts? The sexual offence cases needed better venues. If the money was being shifted, how will the Department cover these other important elements? In July 2019, there was a report that the Department of Public Works and Infrastructure (DPWI) would do an audit of all the courts. Has that report been received by the Department of Justice? Did the Department know the findings of the report with regards to court buildings?

Then she commented on the presentation on employee relations. What will the Department do to address its capacity challenges? There was also lack of cooperation from line managers. What was the Department going to do to resolve this?

In the third quarterly report she saw in the mention of foreign language interpreters but not the targets for interpreters helping deaf South Africans who needed to access courts. The President made a pronouncement that South African sign language would be an official language. What kind of support was the Department giving to South African deaf people? Access to justice was important for deaf people as well.

Mr Horn noted that only one of the planned six projects had commenced while the others were delayed by the DPWI. It was important for the Committee to get the details as to what those projects were supposed to be and why they were delayed. On slide 17, the headline ‘Strategies to prevent underspending’ was misleading. Shifting funds did not necessarily imply that there was underspending in the original budget. Even the Minister of Public Works said she spent time in the courts and now it was a priority of hers to prevent underspending. Therefore it was worrisome to learn that five out of the six big infrastructure projects were now being delayed. The Committee needed more pertinent information of this issue. He also had concerns about the integrated criminal justice system project. Experts were needed to help make this project progress but with underspending and a budget cut. The basic financial information given in the presentation on the integrated criminal justice system project made the Committee to question whether the project was getting value for money.

He also commented on the presentation on misconduct. Some of the old targets had not been met. There was word that there were officials who had been suspended not for months and years on end, pending disciplinary action. The presentation needed to provide more information on the outstanding cases. It would be good to get more information of the progress on Bills that dealt with gender-based violence, as the President announced in the State of the Nation Address.

He found it strange how the position of Solicitor-General was advertised. Reasons needed to be given on why, after all of these delays, it had been earmarked for only a 24-month contract. Why was it not a permanent position?

Ms Maseko-Jele asked a follow-up question on what was asked by Mr Nqola. He said something in relation to postponement of cases in courts. What happened to those administrators and staff who were not available in court at the time when the case was supposed to be in court? Was there any monitoring mechanism to ensure proper procedures in the courts?

There had also been some suspensions that were lifted. Why were those suspensions lifted? Who fills the vacuum of the suspended official because that could cause a backlog? Can the Committee get an update on the report on irregular expenditure? How far were the investigations into irregular expenditure?

She then commented on the grievances and challenges. The Department reported that there was lack of cooperation between role players. If it is known that there are people interested in the outcome of these cases, how will management assist in that situation? What is the Department doing to increase morale for those workers who are in a low-moral environment? Supervisors may have been the cause of this problem. Is there need for more training of supervisors? Has the Department identified any areas that needed intervention? If so, what interventions are needed in order to correct that situation?

The Chairperson said that it would be important for the Deputy Minister to take the Committee through the three priority Bills that would be coming to Parliament.

The Deputy Minister suggested that the Committee should rather wait to receive a full report on the legislative programme. There was a consultation between different departments and civil society on the three Bills. Civil society organisations were given until today to give further input. Those Bills would then be consolidated with those inputs. The question then was whether to bring the Bills straight to Parliament or first issue it for public comment. Issuing it straight to Parliament could cause further delays, so the Department intended on first making them available for public comment. The Committee should have a proper session on the legislative programme at another stage.

He then responded to the questions posed by Mr Nqola and Ms Maseko-Jele on court performance. What was needed to start the discussion was the statistics so that they knew what they were talking about. The district courts could provide reasons as to why certain cases were delayed. There was not much of a delay caused by court staff not being in attendance; it would be reasons such as the prosecutor, legal aid or private attorneys not being at court when they should be. The Committee should also schedule a session to discuss this matter. The Department would provide statistics and the Committee could ask questions based on those statistics. These statistics also needed to be taken into account with people’s perceptions and their actual experience. The presentations were not approved by the Minister or Deputy Minister because there was no time. He noted that more attention was needed to address grievance issues, conduct hearings and suspensions.

He then responded to the issue of the delays in the appointment of magistrates. There was quite a delay between the commission approving the names of the magistrates and when the names were sent to the Minister. That was due to processing issues. The commission appointed the approval of regional magistrates. That had not yet come to the Minister – reason being that the qualifications were being checked. This also caused delays. Some of the target dates given to the vacancies also had not been checked by the Minister or Deputy Minister. They were tentative dates. The State Attorney’s Head of Office posts were advertised for seven offices and the Department was only able to fill one. Sometimes, it took a while for the suitable candidates to apply for these positions.

Adv Skosana said the Act came into operation on 07 February and immediately created a vacancy. The Act created a permanent post. The post was for a period of 24 months and that allowed for the legislation to unfold. The advert asked for interested parties who could perform the role in an acting capacity. It was a temporary measure done under the Minister’s wisdom. There was a transition between the fifth and sixth Administration and that accounted for the many vacancies in the Department. The Department was pushing to achieve all of its intended targets of filling vacant positions as soon as possible. The Department was not in a good space but everyone was working to improve the situation. When the Department presented again on the turnaround strategy they would also provide an update on realignment. There had been some interventions which the Department would provide when they present to the Committee again.

Ms Rossouw indicated that the Department would submit an ordered action plan.

She responded to the questions on how the Department shifted its funds. The Department did not receive funding for 100% of what they needed to do. Shifting funds did not mean that those funds were being shifted to something less important.

In terms of infrastructure, the money was allocated for refurbishment of six courts, which were large projects. She detailed fully the R355 million that was moved in the second quarterly report. It was a technical shifting of funds in most instances. There were other various amounts of funds that were moved to the infrastructure budget of different courts to improve the infrastructure and the outdated computer equipment. Funds were also relocated to the establishment of the investigative directorate. She refuted any claims of fiscal dumping and said that any money spent will not be dumped. The Department was just shifting its priorities.

Mr Mosalanyane Mosala, Chief Director: Service Delivery, Department, said that the Department had not yet done research on the functionality and impact of the sexual offences courts. The Department was underperforming with regards to the National Register for Sex Offenders. The Department was setting up meetings with the relevant parties to go through the register and find out why certain details were missing.

He then responded to the issue of making all courts blueprint-compliant. There was difficulty in working around the existing infrastructure. When designing a new court, it is actually blueprint compliant. The report indicated that out of the six courts that needed major renovations the Department had only succeeded in one. The rest of the five were at different stages of construction.

On issue of case backlogs, he indicated that the National Operations Centre provided a report to the Department detailing the reasons for delays in court cases. The Department managed to bring down the percentage of postponements. In cases of delinquent staff members, who did not arrive at work, consequence management would apply.

The last issue he dealt with was on sign language interpreters. The Department was working to create a language unit with a director responsible for language policy both for interpreting services and for implementing the Languages Act. Part of that unit would deal with compliance to ensure that access was provided to deaf people so that they can participate in the process. At the moment the Department worked with NGOs and had a database of sign language interpreters.

Mr Mpholo responded to the employment relation (ER) matters. The Achilles heel of the Department was the occupation-specific dispensation. Issues of grievances and employee morale could not be dealt with when there were structural impediments that were beyond the control of the Department. He had instructed all human resources and invited all branches to provide an official planning for three days, on 25 February. This was to ensure that for the next five years, the Department planned for all its capacity as well as its supply and demand issues. The Department would also be conducting training for its human resources. The HR plan would inform the turnaround strategy on the issue of human resources.

He heard that there was a call to classify misconduct. The Department had that kind of information available. The Department had instituted a governance structure framework where suspensions and appeals would be dealt with at a Committee level. The current framework allowed for it to be done in a singular fashion. Certain fraud and corruption cases were still outstanding. The HR plan would ensure that both the hard and soft issues would be dealt with because only the serious issues were often dealt with and this allowed for smaller crimes to go unchecked.

Ms Mphahlele-Ntsasa responded to the issue of the digitisation of the Department. She said the Department would be coming back to Parliament to show how it planned to digitise. 

Adv Skosana said the NAP has made its way into the MPSF. It was one of government’s priorities. As far the matter for the DDG of Development and Head of SCM, the outcome of the process would soon be received.

Adv Mohamed raised another query on the importance of the sexual offences court. He asked the Department for clarity on why the advert for a senior position was only up for seven days. Was the Department satisfied with that?

The Chairperson raised an issue the Department did not pay the disadvantaged lawyers on time and this caused them to run into financial difficulties.

The Deputy Minister said that it was imperative that the sexual offences courts were erected where they were needed. Khayelitsha Township was a priority because it had many of such cases. Most attorneys and advocates were being paid within the appropriate time. There were cases where there were disputes over their bill and this resulted in late payment.

Ms Mohube O Phahlane, Acting Chief Litigation Officer, Department of Justice and Constitutional Development, indicated that when there was a dispute that the attorneys would not be paid within thirty days. The Department treated the bill of cost as a court order. The Department had a new system where if someone submitted an invoice it must be certified by the attorney.

Adv Skosana said that the Department had noted all the criticism, questions, points and guidance given by the Committee. He said that the Department would make sure to deliver on its promises.

The Chairperson said that the Department still had not answered Adv Mohamed’s question of why the application was only open for seven days.

Adv Skosana replied that the vacancy needed to be filled immediately and that was why the Department decided to only allow for a seven-day application period. It was a seldom measure and not something that the Department did often.

The Chairperson said that the state of the Department was still worrying. The turnaround plan should not only focus on the financial outcomes but also deal with service delivery. People were not necessarily interested in administrative processes but were interested in meaningful outcomes. Going forward, the Committee would be calling the Department to present on more specific topics and to dress specific issues. The Department needed to be better prepared next time so that there would be alignment from the political and the administrative side of the Department.

The meeting was adjourned.

 

Share this page: