Office of the Chief Justice and Judicial Administration 2021/22 Annual Performance Plan

This premium content has been made freely available

Justice and Correctional Services

05 May 2021
Chairperson: Mr G Magwanishe (ANC)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

Annual Performance Plans

In this virtual meeting, the Office of the Chief Justice (OCJ) presented its Annual Performance Plan to the Portfolio Committee on Justice and Correctional Services.

The OCJ reported that the baseline reduction in funds would negatively impact the OCJ’s capacity to resource courts in terms of HR, equipment and ICT infrastructure. This would harm judicial functions, court modernisation and access to justice through a reduction of circuit courts. The creation of new posts in the Mpumalanga Division of the High Court in 2019 combined with budget cuts would require the reduction of posts in other divisions.

Members’ questions were centred on the impact of the budget cuts on the OCJ’s ability to fulfil its mandate and execute the programmes it had planned for. Members were concerned over the necessity to leave unfilled vacancies in order to accommodate budget cuts and the impact of the Mpumalanga Division of the High Court’s establishment on the OCJ’s already constrained finances. Members also asked about the rollout of Court Online and whether budget cuts would affect timelines, as well as the OCJ’s readiness for the establishment of the Land Court as the Land Court Bill made its way through Parliament.
 

Meeting report

The Chairperson apologised to the Office of the Chief Justice (OCJ) for the late start.

Ms Memme Sejosengwe, Secretary General, OCJ, introduced the delegation. She introduced the OCJ’s Annual Performance Plan for the 2021/22 financial year.

Briefing by Office of the Chief Justice
Mr Itumeleng Malao, Director: Monitoring and Evaluation and Reporting, OCJ, said that the Annual Performance Plan (APP) was given in the context of both external and internal situational factors that would affect its implementation. External factors included Covid-19, the state of the economy, social factors and technology; all of which had an effect on the access to justice. Internal factors included the OCJ’s capacity, health and wellness, ICT and the OCJ’s financial constraints.

The OCJ estimated it would earn a clean audit for 2020/21 and give 80% of tenders to level 4 and above BBBEE entities, and was seeking the same in the MTEF. The OCJ planned to keep vacancies in funded posts under 10%, and targeted 30% youth employment and 50% female representation at senior level. It was targeting rolling out the Court Online system at 2 service centres.

In Superior Courts, the OCJ was targeting an improvement in on-time default judgments and cost finalisations. It also sought to increase the number of judicial education courses conducted.

Mr Casper Coetzer, CFO, OCJ, introduced the financial information. The OCJ would see a reduction in its budget by R274m in 2021/22 and R368m in 2022/23. The vast majority of these cuts came from reductions in employee compensation. The OCJ’s budget for 2021/22 was R2.6bn.

Mr Coetzer stated that the baseline reduction in funds would negatively impact the OCJ’s capacity to resource courts in terms of HR, equipment and ICT infrastructure. This would harm judicial functions, court modernisation and access to justice through a reduction of circuit courts. The creation of new posts in the Mpumalanga Division of the High Court in 2019 combined with budget cuts would require the reduction of posts in other divisions.

The 15% cut of employee compensation would cripple the OCJ’s core mandate, stopping ti from filling critical posts. 71 posts would have to be unfilled in 2021/22, growing to 102 posts in 2023/24. Goods and services budget cuts would also hamper court modernisation and training. Direct charges (i.e. the salaries of judges) had also been negatively affected, which would have a negative impact on the rendering of judicial function.

Mr Malao also noted the risks to the programmes, including possible exposure to corruption, delays to Court Online from externalities, inadequate resources and inadequate administrative support.

(See Presentation)

Discussion

Mr W Horn (DA) took note of the impact of budget cuts on court modernisation, and asked for a clarification of the practical implementation of court modernisation in the medium term. He raised the issue of the Land Court Bill and whether the OCJ had started preparing for the financial impact of the Court’s establishment, which could be imminent.   

Adv S Swart (ACDP) conceded that budget cuts were unavoidable, but highlighted that the Committee needed to consider the detrimental impact on access to justice of these cuts as detailed by the CFO. He asked the OCJ to discuss the reduced funding to the Mpumalanga High Court. He asked whether the posts staying unfilled were additional or cumulative. He enquired as to progress in allowing online courts from the Rules Board. 

Dr W Newhoudt-Druchen (ANC) asked whether the OCJ had already decided where the Court Online system would be rolled out, and requested that rural areas be given special consideration, noting her experience with rural courts indicated that distances and socioeconomic factors made online courts particularly desirable there. She noted the backlog in courts accruing during lockdown, and asked whether this had been reduced. She enquired as to the OCJ’s readiness for the Land Court Bill. She asked how the Covid-19 pandemic had affected the OCJ and courts. She registered her concern over the quality of sign language interpreters in courts, and asked what the department would do in the long term to improve this.

Adv G Breytenbach (DA) registered her concern that budget cuts would seriously hamper the efficient administration of the judicial system and the modernisation of the system, as well as access to justice. She did not see how available funds could provide for a 21st century justice system. She foresaw great difficulties in this regard.

Ms N Maseko-Jele (ANC) echoed Adv Breytenbach’s concerns, and asked how the IT flagship project would be affected by budget cuts. She enquired as to how financial constraints would affect fighting corruption. She requested the OCJ to provide detailed plans on gender representation at senior management level. She asked for further detail on the OCJ’s training programmes.

Ms Sejosengwe began by responding to the effects of financial constraints on JSC recommendations. She reminded members that judges were paid by direct charges from the National Revenue Fund. As long as judges were employed full-time, they would have to be paid, and Treasury would have to make money available for this. The unfilled vacancies numbers were cumulative, not additional, and were administrative positions. 

Mr Coetzer continued on the topic of budget cuts and staffing. The Mpumalanga division would continue to function given pre-existing appointments, but the budget cut meant that these appointments would have to be funded out of a reduced budget, which was why 72 posts had to remain unfilled in the 2021/22 financial year. Had Treasury not cut the additional funding it had given to the OCJ after the Mpumalanga division’s establishment, only 12 posts would have been cut.

The budget cuts as they were currently would not impact the rollout of the Court Online project in 2021/22. Capital projects planned mainly focused on replacing aging infrastructure, especially ICT infrastructure. Court modernisation focused on additional infrastructure needs that would be engendered by rollout of additional online capacity, including increased server demands and more modern end-user capacity. Networks would have to be strengthened to carry the demands of an online court system, in terms of cloud capacity, bandwidth and server capacity. The OCJ needed a data recovery/backup site for the Court Online system, which was planned with the Integrated Justice System (IJS), in case of an ICT crash. This was not currently the case and funding did not provide for this. Planned increases in bandwidth in courts would not be funded. Courts currently operated with 20Mbps bandwidth, but needed 100Mbps for Court Online systems. The digitisation of court records was at serious risk. Storage capacity for physical records was limited and declined every year as new records were added.

Mr Nathi Mncube, Chief Director: Court Administration, OCJ, addressed the issue of Court Online. Court Online (formerly known as eFiling) was likely to be piloted in the following months, as the pilot was at an advanced stage. Court Online would be piloted in the Johannesburg and Pretoria divisions. Court Online was currently focused only on civil matters at Superior Courts. These courts were found in metropolitan areas or urban centres in rural provinces. Only circuit courts sat in rural areas. Budget cuts would jeopardise the timeline to include criminal matters in the Court Online system. The choice of courts for Court Online was made by Heads of Court on the recommendation of an advisory committee (JAID) chaired by a Judge President. The OCJ advised on the state of readiness of courts for the pilot, including bandwidth and WiFi infrastructure and user equipment. As it stood, after Gauteng High Court, the two apex courts (i.e. the Constitutional Court and Supreme Court of Appeals) were likely to receive Court Online. The JAID committee had also established a subcommittee focusing on the uniform rules of court to allow for Court Online’s implementation. A draft document was available for comment until the end of May.

In terms of sign language interpreters, this capacity was outsourced by the OCJ and service providers were contracted on the basis of need. The reason was that the current usage of sign language interpreters was relatively minimal.

Virtual courts were currently easier to use for civil matters rather than criminal matters and trial matters. Conducting a full trial virtually had proven difficult.

Mr Ranako Mabunda, Director: Internal Audit, OCJ, clarified that the OCJ had adopted a 4 dimensional strategy to address corruption: implementing preventative and detective measures, instigating investigations and issue resolution. The cut in goods and services budget would affect the preventative and detective measures in terms of evidence gathering. However, the OCJ had become innovative in using virtual means to implement measures. Investigations of sophisticated corruptions were made difficult by the need for expensive specialised skills.

Mr Mncube answered Dr Newhoudt-Druchen’s question on Covid-19’s impact on the OCJ: the judiciary had not been seriously affected – only 223 cases had been registered since March 2020, most had recovered and only 4 deaths had been recorded. A rotational system was implemented in courts were officials would rotate working in the office and at home where possible. Numbers in courts and offices were kept as low as possible. Only 60% of judicial workers reported for duty on a daily basis. Courts had not been closed since Level 5 lockdown in 2020. In instances where there had been a positive case, some courts had been temporarily closed for one or two days. 

Ms Sejosengwe noted that the Chief Justice had reported to the Committee on the case backlog at courts as this was his responsibility. Regarding the Land Court Bill, the OCJ was following its evolution in Parliament. The court would still be located in Johannesburg but sit across the country as the current Land Claims Court did. It seemed the Court would take a similar shape to the Labour and Labour Appeals Courts. The Court would have a Judge President (it currently had an Acting JP) and a Deputy JP, in line with the Superior Courts Act and as many justices as needs be, in the same line as other courts. Obviously this would entail additional financial needs as it would be an entirely new judicial establishment – the National Revenue Fund would have to provide for this and the OCJ would engage with Treasury once there was certainty over the Bill. The Bill as it stood echoed the Superior Courts Act in terms of administrative staff. The administrative resources required for permanent structures wherever the Court may sit were unrealistically large, and so the Court may have to rely on resources from local divisions of the High Court wherever it may sit. This had a snowball effect on capacity at the High Court. The Land Court would require additional funding and infrastructure to function. With the current compensation cuts, this was a headache for the OCJ. The OCJ would ask the Committee for support in bringing pressure to bear on Treasury to support requests for additional funding. Other implications were anchored around new judicial structures. Permanent judges required permanent secretaries and researchers to support judges.

Regarding Ms Maseko-Jele’s question on implementing 50% of women at a senior management level, Ms Sejosengwe requested to send a written report but noted the OCJ had sent a report on the senior management level in its previous meeting with the Committee.

The Chairperson thanked the SG for facilitating a meeting with the Heads of Courts. The Committee had organised a meeting with the Minister to discuss issues raised by the Heads of Court. It was important that the Committee imagined a new normal, even post-Covid, for the judiciary. A cost-benefit analysis on new rules of court, including e-rules, would be required. Legislation may have to be amended in this regard. Budgetary constraints would have to be dealt with.

The Chairperson lamented that government often did not get value for money. There was often a price supplied to government that was different to normal and unreasonable. The state often overpaid for goods and services. Procurement processes had to maximise on limited resources. Tender processes were often exploited by suppliers quoting inflated prices. He argued that costs were sometimes avoidable or could be minimised, which could be a way of addressing budgetary constraints. Instead of 8 courts being built at the Mpumalanga High Court, 4 courts were built at double the price with structural defects. The money to fix these structural defects would affect service delivery. The financial situation was not as bad as it looked given overpaying for goods and services.

Most of the judges interviewed by the Committee had found e-files useful and increased the quality and speed of their judgements. Investment in ICT infrastructure in the short-term might deliver large savings in the medium-to-long term. A detailed case study addressing the capital outlay and savings delivered by improved ICT infrastructure at courts would be helpful. The OCJ had to give the Committee ammunition to fight for its interests with Treasury. The Committee had to be able to demonstrate the costs and value of programmes it was proposing to Treasury. The savings were not only for the budget, but also for economic and social costs. Good service delivery by courts had positive economic and social impact. Witnesses who had to wait in court for an entire day to testify were economically inactive for that day, which represented an opportunity cost for the economy. Treasury was under intense financial pressure, and the Committee had to assist it to spend appropriately and save where possible.

Ms Sejosengwe appreciated the Chairperson’s input and noted his request for increased information to enable the Committee to fight for its funding.

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: