Committee discussion on planned oversight visits

This premium content has been made freely available

Justice and Correctional Services

01 December 2021
Chairperson: Mr G Magwanishe (ANC)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

 Oversight Document Considerations regarding the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development (DoJ&CD) and its Entities (Only for members)

Oversight Considerations regarding the Department of Correctional Services and its Entities (Only for members)

The Portfolio Committee on Justice and Correctional Services met on a virtual platform for deliberations on a programme for oversight visits of the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development and the Department of Correctional Services and their entities based on an innovative method of ensuring that the Committee had oversight of the critical areas in its portfolio.

Committee support staff presented members with an overview of issues that should be taken into consideration when the Committee considered fulfilling its oversight function. The secretariat had looked at broad thematic areas, defined key focus areas and then noted possible sites that the Committee might want to look at, although the actual detail of the oversight programme would be determined by the Members. In looking at the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development and its entities, the first and most important thematic area was gender-based violence with a focus on the sexual offences courts. Domestic violence was another thematic area and the Committee could look at the Justice Rapid Results Challenge as well as the new state-of-the-art Family Court in the Point precinct in Durban. The one-stop facilities would also need to be visited by the Committee. Access to Justice Services infrastructure would need to include engagement with senior officials in the Department of Public Works and Infrastructure. Other broad thematic areas included the Masters Office, fighting corruption, skill development, ICT including audio-visual remand, the virtual platform system and connectivity in courts, and visits to Chapter Nine institutions such as the South African Human Rights Commission and the Information Regulator.

Oversight of Correctional Services had, firstly, to focus on rehabilitation and the response to gender-based violence as a core function of the correctional services system. Self-sufficiency of the institutions was important while infrastructure was a critical concern. Private public partnerships were raised as a thematic area as the two private prisons would revert to the Department in 2026 and 2027, while overcrowding was an immediate and urgent area of concern. Remand centres, female offenders, especially mothers and babies, social re-integration, security and IT systems, children and youth offenders, and health care and state patients were the additional areas of focus identified.

Committee Members were well-prepared with their proposals of issues of importance when it came to the oversight function. Areas that received endorsement from Members included rehabilitation and integration, female offenders and mothers and babies. A Member noted that people’s rights were abused when they became remand detainees merely because they could not afford amounts of less than R1 000 for bail as such an insignificant amount of money would do little to ensure court attendance by the individual. A new bail system was an urgent necessity. Members raised the need to visit stakeholders and to undertake unannounced visits.

Discussion focused on the prioritising areas of concern for oversight visits over the following 18 months, not being distracted from oversight visits by other parliamentary obligations, managing the budget, organising cost-effective methods of conducting visits and the need for research papers on international best practice before each visit. Members noted the significance of the innovative and methodical manner in which the Committee was selecting critical themes, focus areas and identifying sites. The management team was to prepare a draft programme.

The Committee made arrangements to bid farewell to a long-serving Member who was leaving Parliament, Mr J Selfe (DA).

Meeting report

Opening remarks

The Chairperson welcomed Members and everyone on the platform. He noted that the months of January and February 2022 would be very intense months. The Judicial Services Commission had suggested that from 1 to 5 February 2022 be reserved for the interviews for the appointment of the Chief Justice, seeing that the position was vacant, and the Chairperson and Adv G Breytenbach (DA) would be involved in those interviews. There would also be interviews for the position of Inspector-General of Intelligence from 10 to 13 January 2022. That appointment would require the support of two-thirds of the House of Assembly as it was quite a senior appointment. The State of the Nation Address by the President would be held on 10 February 2022. The oversight programme of the Committee would need to take those dates into account.

He requested that the Committee consider the minutes of 26 November 2021 before commencement of the agenda item.

Minutes

The minutes of 26 November 2021 were read and adopted, with the corrected details of the brief attendance of Mr W Horn (DA), and without objections.

Presentation of Oversight Considerations regarding the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development (DoJ&CD) and its Entities

Ms Christine Silkstone, Committee Content Advisor, presented an overview of issues that should be taken into consideration when the Committee considered its oversight of the DoJ&CD. The secretariat had looked at broad thematic areas, defined key focus areas and then noted possible sites that the Committee might want to look at, although the actual detail of the oversight programme would be determined by the Committee’s decisions on how to approach the oversight visits.

1.Gender-based violence was the first thematic area with a focus on the sexual offences courts. Courts to be visited would be determined by the province being visited. According to the 2021 Annual Report, the Western Cape had highest backlog of sexual offences cases, followed by Gauteng, Limpopo and Eastern Cape. The Committee could also look at the courts with the highest number of new sexual offences cases, which were Bloemfontein, Wynberg, Paarl, Pretoria, Welkom and Mbombela.

2. The one-stop facilities was a second theme. The Committee had not paid a visit to see how the model worked.            

3. Domestic violence should be considered. The Committee could look at the Justice Rapid Results Challenge. There was a new state-of-the-art Family Court in the Point precinct in Durban, dealing with domestic violence, maintenance, children’s court proceedings and protection from harassment. It was also a court where one could make an online application for a protection order. That would be an interesting visit and would offer a look at the modernisation processes. Gender-based violence was a priority area for the Committee and a visit to the South African Police Services forensic laboratory might be well-advised.

4. Access to Justice Services Infrastructure would focus on ease of access to justice services accessibility, functioning of courts, infrastructure and maintenance and service delivery. An example of infrastructure would be the South Gauteng High Court which had one of the heaviest caseloads and the Committee could visit the North Gauteng High Court or the Pretoria Magistrates Court for a comparison. Infrastructure challenges could be observed at courts such as the Musina Magistrate Court and the Limpopo High Court. The Committee had not received a recent update from the DoJ&CD or the Department of Public Works and Infrastructure. The Committee might need to engage with the Office of the Chief Justice to identify concerns.

5. The Masters Office was a major concern for the Committee and particular Masters Offices could be identified.

6. Fighting corruption: an on-site visit to the relevant Interim Directorate would be worthwhile.

7. Skills Development: the Justice College had been renewed and would make for an interesting visit.

8. ICT was an overarching theme and including audio-visual remand, the virtual platform system, connectivity in courts, inadequate and outdated ICT systems. Court and justice service points could be identified.

9. The Human Rights Commission and Information Regulator: the Committee could visit their new premises and look at the whether the governance issue had been resolved at the Information Regulator.

Presentation on Oversight Considerations regarding the Department of Correctional Services and its Entities

Mr Mpho Mathabathe, Committee Researcher, made the presentation. He had followed the same system of looking at a broad theme, the issues linked to that thematic area and then had presented some specific sites that might warrant an oversight visit. The document had already been considered and honed by the Sub-Committee on Correctional Services.

1.Rehabilitation was the core function of Correctional Services. The response of Correctional Services to the Gender-based Violence (GBV) legislation should be investigated. The Committee could look at the provision of sex offender programmes. The document provided a list of centres that might be worth visiting.

2.Self-sufficiency was an area that the Committee had encouraged. The Department had the manpower and the facilities that could be used both for self-sufficiency, and to ensure that offenders acquired skills while incarcerated. The Committee could look at provision of programmes which included the use of manpower and the teaching of skills: a production workshop, animal reproduction, bakeries, fruit and vegetable gardens. A list of potential sites for oversight visits was included.

3.Infrastructure was a critical concern. A number of centres had been refurbished or renovated. The previous year, the Minister of Justice and Correctional Services had announced that the facility at Tzaneen had been completed and occupied and that was a possible site for a visit. A list of centres that had experienced delays in the completion of construction was also provided.

4.PPPs or Public Private Partnerships in which the government awarded a contract for a service provider to build and run a prison while the government paid for the infrastructure and a specific amount per inmate. The facilities had to be handed back after 25 years, i.e. in the case of the current contracts, in 2026 and 2027. As the facilities had to be handed back in good condition, the Committee could visit the Mangaung and Kutama Sinthumule Correctional Facilities to check on them.

5. Overcrowding was an area of challenge for the Department.  Overcrowding had an impact on gang violence.

6. Remand detention: the Committee had had always raised its concerns in that regard. The issue was that inmates were languishing in correctional facilities because they could not afford bail, some as little as under R1 000, but they contributed significantly to the problem of overcrowding.

7. Female offenders and mothers with babies up to two years of age in correctional facilities was a theme. After the age of two, the babies were supposed to be removed from the facilities. What programmes were offered and what was the condition of mother and baby units? The document contained a list of facilities offering mother and baby units.

8. Social reintegration was another critical issue because offenders had to be assisted to re-integrate into society. The matter had been highlighted in a report by the judicial inspectorate. Challenges had been raised in respect of parole, halfway houses, recidivism where offenders were released on parole and re-committed offences. Challenges were also experienced by Community Corrections Services. The Committee should meet with the National Council of Correctional Services in Pretoria to establish how it dealt with the issue of parole for lifers. Some of the halfway houses were listed.

9. Security and IT systems. There had been 104 escapes in the previous year, mostly from Malmesbury Prison, and largely as a result of non-adherence to policy and procedures. IT issues included the Integrated Inmate Management System (IIMS) delays and the non-achievement of implementation targets. The Committee had expressed concern about the super-max facility, Ebongweni Correctional Centre, which was the only supermax facility in SA, and might interest Members.

 10. Children and Youth Offenders,18 to 21: what were the educational programmes offered to the youth? The schools in those facilities usually obtained a good Senior Certificate pass rates. Some facilities catered specifically for youth offenders.

11. Health Care and State patients was another focus area. Mthatha had 21 state patients, Kimberley nine state patients and in Kgoshi Mampuru, there were eight state patients. The Committee could look at the conditions under which they were housed. The Committee could note the challenges experienced by officials who were not paid to deal with state patients.

Discussion

The Chairperson noted that the two presentations would guide the discussion on oversight visits.

Adv Breytenbach found the presentation helpful but she said the Committee should bear in mind that oversight had, in the past, tended to be showcasing the small pockets of “adequacy”, certainly no excellency, but the Committee should be visiting the areas of “inadequacy” so that those areas could be addressed. It should be a real hard, unpleasant look at those things that were wrong, of which there were many.

Regarding the Justice programme, she agreed that it was crucial to take a proper look at the IT set up, what had led to the big issues and, more importantly, what had been put in place to ensure that it did not happen in the future. The Committee needed to look at one or two of the courts declared unfit for human habitation to see where public had to go to access justice. They had to go to places with no toilets, no chairs and no roofs. The Committee needed to look at those places and then it needed to address the problem. Members could also look at the court in Durban to see what could be done if everyone put their minds to it and to see if it were, indeed, a flagship.

As far as the Correctional Services programme was concerned, the Committee needed to concentrate on two areas, although there were so many that were a mess. Rehabilitation and Integration should be the focus. The programme was clearly not working and had not worked for decades. There had to be a way of dealing with the disconnect. The training given in prisons was fine but when an inmate left prison, he still had no formal education and no technical, financial or business skills. The skill that the person had as an artisan was not helpful if he could not run a business. There had to be a more holistic approach. The current approach would remain window dressing if a more holistic skill set were not offered.

The Committee had to look at the issue of remand detainees. As she had told the Minister of Justice and Correctional Services, there was a huge amount of goodwill in the profession towards remand detainees. There were ways to deal with them but the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development could not do it alone. There needed to be a complete buy-in from the judiciary, Legal Aid, public prosecutors and everyone. Then only could it be dealt with it. No one who had a bail requirement of R1 000 should be in prison because R1 000 would not make someone stand trial: it was easy to run away from that amount of money. A different way had to be found to secure a person’s attendance in court. Bail should not be a punitive process. It was only intended to deal with securing attendance in court and should not be abused. There were exceptional circumstances, but on the whole, people were entitled to the benefit of the doubt; they were innocent until proven guilty.

Adv Breytenbach said that, by pure chance, she had come across a programme for youth offenders run in the Western Cape. It was intended for first time offenders who were not in prison and for young people who were leading the kind of life that would lead to them going to prison. The Programme Manager used ex-offenders to educate the youngsters and to give them the life skills they needed to avoid going to prison. Prevention was always better than cure. The Committee might benefit from a visit to the programme.

She wanted the Committee to go to St Albans Maximum Prison as it was an abomination and should not be allowed to exist. She would like to see the supermax prison. Finally, she suggested that it would be helpful if the Committee Researcher could provide some research on international best practice in prisons which Members could read before visiting prisons.

The Chairperson noted the issue of bail and asked if it were not linked to the workshop on bail that Adv Breytenbach had requested.

Adv Bretenbach agreed that it was.

Dr W Newhoudt-Druchen (ANC) was interested in the focus on female offenders. She would like to find out the training or skills development that female offenders were receiving before they left correctional centres. Perhaps to make such an approach more integrated, if the Committee visited Malmesbury prison, where there were female inmates, but Members could also monitor the progress in respect of the court that had burnt down in 2019. Court proceedings were still taking place alongside the burnt-out court. The Committee could speak to professionals in Correctional Services, such as psychologists.

She had not seen any mention of victim empowerment. How did Correctional Services get victims to programmes offered by the Department? She was still confused about how the IIMS (Integrated Inmate Management System) and the Audio-Visual Remand System worked. It would be useful if Members could visit a court to see how the systems worked.

Ms N Maseko-Jele (ANC) asked if the Committee could revisit the issue of creating two groups of Committee Members, allocated according to their areas of residence, to conduct oversight visits. She agreed with subdividing the Committee, but she suggested the creation of a triangle by adding visits by the entire Committee.  The smaller groups would go to some areas, but the entire Committee should visit some places together as a team. The two smaller groups could make the “soft” visits and the entire team would visit the “hard” areas where there were real problems.

Secondly, regarding the Justice oversight programme, she suggested that when the Committee visited courts, Members needed the opportunity to experience the traditional courts. Perhaps the Committee could be advised as to where it could get information about the traditional courts. She felt that such a visit was necessary as the Committee would be leading discussions on legislation governing the traditional courts in the coming term.

The Chairperson welcomed Ms A Ramolobeng (ANC) back from burying her grandmother and expressed the condolences of the Committee.

Ms Ramolobeng thanked Committee Members for their support and messages. She stated that when she had worked for the Minister of Tourism, she had come across an unused centre for sex offenders and drug users in the area of Secunda. She would have to obtain the name of the centre, but she wanted the Committee to visit the centre as it was a big centre that could possibly be used and which would contribute to the community in that area.

She was interested in female offenders and mothers and suggested visits to Pollsmoor and the Durban centre. Her interest was in what really happened if the centre were unable to trace any family members of the mother. What happened to the child in such an instance?

Ms Ramolobeng had been covered by Adv Breytenbach on the need to have oversight over the IT set-up, especially as 104 inmates had escaped. The Committee needed to visit all the centres where the IT systems had allowed escapes and nothing had been done about it.

Mr R Dyantyi (ANC) appreciated the work of the secretariat. Many of the Committee Members were fairly new, i.e. of the 2019 generation, but it appeared to him that the present manner of approaching oversight visits was pioneering new territory. He had not come across that method before. The workshop in 2020 where Members had looked at the history of oversight visits and where those who had experienced oversight visits had spoken of what they could have done better with regards to oversight. The new approach to oversight adopted by the Portfolio Committee on Justice and Correctional Services would go a long way for the Sixth Parliament and he wanted Members to remember that day. He appreciated the leadership of the Chairperson and the work of the support team. It should not be seen as a seasonal /Black Friday oversight programme but as one that would define the way that Committees would work throughout the year and throughout a term of office. The focus areas that had been presented to the Committee could not be done in six months.

He said that the Portfolio Committee management committee had to look at the logistics of oversight visits and determine which were priority areas. Adv Breytenbach had suggested some areas but everyone had favourite areas. Not everyone could be satisfied but the Committee had to start somewhere. The launch of the methodology would see the Committee starting in certain areas, but the process would not stop there. There had to be a balance so that the Committee meetings continued. The management team needed to prioritise certain areas. For example, the PPPs could be delayed until closer to the time of a new contract when the new contract could be influenced by the thinking of Members, but Adv Breytenbach had hit the nail on the head in saying that the core mandate of Correctional Services was rehabilitation. The system was supposedly moving from prisons to correctional services. Not being on top of the rehabilitation programme would lead to many other problems.  It was necessary to hang everything around that theme.

He supported Adv Breytenbach’s request for research on international best practice for correctional services and justice but, once the Committee had agreed on a programme, Members would need research documents on the areas that the Committee would be visiting to sharpen the Members’ insight before the visits. The support staff would have to coordinate with each other in respect of the different research tasks. Research would need to be linked to the Committee programme.

Mr Dyantyi reminded the Committee that there was a need to look at the budget and to ask whether there were sufficient funds to do the oversight work and whether the Committee could afford to divide Members into two teams or whether it would be necessary for them to go in a single team. He asked whether the research team needed further support to do the work required of them.

He stated that to be added to the focus areas was the issue of the stakeholders, which Adv Breytenbach had begun to address with the offenders’ programme that she had spoken of. The issue of the Magistrates Commission had to be addressed. The Judge who currently heads the Commission had said that he could attend a meeting in Parliament because it raised other issues. However, he had suggested a middle way. Deputy Judge President A Ledwaba had suggested that the Committee should visit the Commission at court. The support staff addressing the Justice issues needed to look into that issue because there was a blind spot in dealing with that issue. That was just one stakeholder; there were many others.

The Chairperson thanked Mr Dyantji for making his summary easier. He noted that the secretariat had raised many critical issues and he thanked them for their work. It had also made the task more difficult because the support staff had raised so many critical issues. He also appreciated the work that Members had put into considering what they would want from the oversight programme.  

He said that, with effectively ten Members as Mr Selfe was stepping down, it would be difficult to subdivide the Committee more than once. The Committee should take advantage of Parliament’s programme in which every term began with an oversight visit. The management committee needed to plan ahead in that respect so that there was a plan for the commencement of each term. He reminded the Committee that, as an activist Parliament, Members had to go out and deal with issues that were a priority to members of society.

Regarding the budget, he said that the Committee could undertake one oversight visit in January 2022 using the current budget. The Committee would be able to use funds from the budget in the new financial year for further visits in 2022. The issue of stakeholders was important. Seeing as the country was still in lockdown, he had been considering engagement with stakeholders and Correctional Services centres in the Western Cape as there was a sizable number of Members who resided in the City of Cape Town. As agreed in 2019, maybe some of the Committee days could be used for Members to visit prisons and courts, especially in Cape Town. There was a higher concentration of Members in Cape Town and in Gauteng but that did not stop other Members from joining Members in Cape Town or Gauteng. He was aware that Mr W Horne (DA) was a loner in the Free State and Mr X Nqola (ANC) was a loner in the Eastern Cape but that did not stop them from joining Members for the visits. That would be cost effective. It also did not require much in way of resources for Members to travel from Johannesburg and Ekurhuleni to Pretoria. However, the Committee still needed two big oversight visits with the subdivided teams according to the prioritised list.

The presentation by the Content Advisor had recommended a visit to the Chapter Nine Commissions SAHRC and the Information Regulator as they were located in the same building. In order not to show favouritism, he recommended that visits be planned to all the Chapter Nine institutions that were located in Pretoria, according to a priority listing. The Committee should also prioritise stakeholders.

The Chairperson had noticed a change of attitude amongst judges. Chief Justice Arthur Chaskalson and Chief Justice Pius Langa had had no problem with going to Parliament as Chief Justices, but now he heard that the Committee had to go to the courts to meet with the Head of the Magistrates Commission. Even the Deputy Chief Justices used to accompany the Chief Justices to Parliament and Members had engaged with them. The Committee had taken a decision in 2020 to have a discussion with the Magistrates Commission regarding the slowness of the disciplinary cases. He suggested that not far from the HSRC and the Constitutional Court was the Pius Langa School that trained junior advocates. It was the first of its kind in the country and he believed that it would be valuable to pay a courtesy visit to the school.

The Chairperson agreed with Mr Dyantyi that there was a need for a management meeting to prioritise issues and to work out a costed programme. He cautioned that what was prioritised for January 2022 did not ignore other issues that would be addressed later as the management committee would work out a two-year programme. The Committee had to jealously guard the oversight weeks. The Committee was always reminded by the Departments about the importance of addressing Bills on time as they had constitutional deadlines but it was not fair for Departments to bring Bills to Parliament in a rush at the last minute. The Gender-based Violence Bill had been brought to the Committee in a rush and everything had been pushed aside by Parliament, but that Bill was still unsigned. Oversight visits should also be viewed as a constitutional obligation. The Departments were always late with legislation but the Committee could not allow oversight visits to be pushed aside again. The fact that there had not been any oversight visits by the Committee since 2019 had to be corrected.

He agreed that visiting the traditional courts, as raised by Ms Maseko-Jele, was critical. He had no direct experience of traditional courts and did not know how they operated. Members could not pass laws without having some understanding of how the traditional courts operated.

The Chairperson was aware that from 15 December 2021 most Members would not be around, so the management team would meet before that date and the proposed programme would be circulated to Members who would be expected to respond, even if they were in Mauritius. He reminded Members that the support staff were extremely tired and they needed a rest, so they would have to work smartly to get the programme finalised. They needed time to reboot their batteries. There would be no point in working them to death as there would be no one to do the work. He reminded Members that they should not be disappointed if their issues were not addressed first. The programme would see the issues spread over 2022 and half of 2023 because by mid-2023 it would be difficult to do much work as most parties would be in an election mode. He asked for confirmation of the process by Members.

Mr Dyantyi agreed but added that, while it could not be put in the programme, there might be some unannounced oversight visits that obviously would not be announced on social media in advance. Members, and the secretariat, would need to be aware of that.

He added that the Chairperson and Adv Breytenbach could assist in solving one problem during the events of 1 to 5 February 2022. The Chairperson and Adv Breytenbach could remember the reluctance of Chief Justices to come to Parliament and they could test that reluctance with a good question during the interviews for the new Chief Justice. In asking questions in relation to the separation of powers in section 165, they could ask if the candidate would be reluctant to appear before Parliament.

The Chairperson agreed that, in 2019, it had been agreed to hold unannounced visits. Those visits could be conducted by both the bigger Committee visits and the smaller visits by Members in local areas, e.g. Cape Town Members could visit Pollsmoor unannounced.

The Chairperson said that Adv Breytenbach had been inundated with the issue of the non-functional courts and even the late Jackie Mofokeng had continuously complained about the court in Mamelodi that had been under construction for the past ten years. He suggested that the Minister of Public Works and Infrastructure should be requested to send a very senior person to account for why that court was taking so long and to account for the structural problems in the Mbombela and Polokwane courts that had cost billions of Rands. The oversight visits had to be about the Committee ensuring that there was consequence management. Because the Members represented the public, even when conducting oversight visits they were the people of SA looking at their investments and wanting to know why things were not working. It was not a tour, but democracy in action.

Adv Breytenbach said that small unannounced visits were an excellent way of doing oversight but two people should go together and should compile a short report and so the Committee Members would be aware of what was going on. She would visit some places with Mr Dyantyi and he could write the reports.

Mr Dyantyi said that Dr Newhoudt-Druchen should be included in the visits.

The Chairperson said that the Masters Offices should also be visited. The management team would work on the programme and once Members had approved, the programme would be sent to the leaders of the parties and the House Chairperson. He noted that the Committee was in agreement.

Committee Business

The Chairperson had been advised that the following Friday Mr Selfe would be in Parliament. He had been advised that Members would have to go to Mr Selfe but he asked Ms Breytenbach for an update on the situation.

Adv Breytenbach stated that Mr Selfe was touched and grateful that Members wanted to meet with him. Instead of the Members going out to his home in Muizenberg, he would be in Cape Town next Thursday and would sleep over in his flat so that he could go to Parliament the following day. His office had already been vacated but the Committee could meet in her office in Marks Building as her office could accommodate the entire Committee. She was unsure of her office number but would advise Members.

The Chairperson said that a sit-down lunch in a restaurant in Parliament would be nice but if that could not be arranged, they could meet in Adv Breytenbach’s office. He requested the Committee Secretary to make the necessary arrangements.

Adv Breytenbach requested that the Secretary select a restaurant in Marks Building so that Mr Selfe did not have to walk too far.

The Chairperson reminded Members that the joint meeting with the Portfolio Committee on Women, Youth and Persons with Disabilities would continue the following Tuesday. He asked about Mr Dyantyi’s meeting. Would it be held on Wednesday?

Mr Dyantyi stated that he was still talking to the Portfolio Committee on Women, Youth and Persons with Disabilities as certain things had to happen by the following Friday. They had to have their ducks in a row so he would find a time for the Correctional Services meeting.

The Chairperson agreed, noting that the following week would be Correctional Services week as previously agreed by the Committee.

Concluding remarks

The Chairperson thanked everyone for their contributions. There was no need to bid farewell as the Committee would be meeting again the following week. Before he declared the meeting adjourned, he noted the presence of Prof C Msimang (IFP) on the platform.

The meeting was adjourned.

 

Documents

No related documents

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: