Overview of Budgets by Minister; Office of the Chief Justice and Judicial Administration 2022/23 Annual Performance Plan

Meeting report

The Chairperson, Mr G Magwanishe (ANC), was not present so the Portfolio Committee (PC) proceeded to elect an Acting Chairperson.

Adv G Breytenbach (DA) nominated Mr S Swart (ACDP).

Mr Swart declined the nomination.

Ms W Newhoudt-Druchen (ANC) nominated Mr R Dyantyi (ANC) to be the Acting Chairperson.

Mr X Nqola (ANC) seconded the nomination.

 Mr Dyantyi accepted the role of Acting Chairperson.

The Chairperson had sent an apology for not being able to attend the meeting stating that he was unwell.

Mr Swart asked that his apology for the afternoon be noted as he would be attending the National Assembly sitting.

The Chairperson replied that the plan was for the meeting to end around 13:30.

Ms N Maseko-Jele (ANC) apologised, as she was on sick leave and might need to leave the meeting.

Minister’s Political Overview on the Ministry's Annual Performance Plans for the 2022/23 Financial Year

Mr Ronald Lamola, Minister of Justice and Correctional Services, gave an overview of the Ministry's Annual Performance Plans for the 2022/23 financial year, reproduced in full below.

Addressing the Committee, he said that it was heart sore that they were meeting at a time when the nation was still reeling from the devastating floods in KwaZulu – Natal (KZN) and the Eastern Cape. The floods have come at a time when society is still recovering from the global Covid-19 pandemic, albeit with minor resurgence. It is the hope of the Department that the country will still be able to manage the virus and pandemic and will be able to respond despite the economic challenges that come with the pandemic.

These acts of God have derailed plans in ways that one could not have anticipated nor imagined. It is clear that everyone has to be conscious and concerned about the imminent threat of climate change to humanity and society at large. He also said that it is important to ensure that the Department and its attendant services are deeply embedded in the communities to ensure that services are still accessible even in the most severe circumstances.

Minister Lamola told the Committee that the State continues to function and discharge its services to the Nation. One can concede that within the arm of the Executive, there have been challenges which have been laid bare before the judiciary and at times before the Committee, and other watchdog institutions like Parliament. In a failed state, Parliament is a rubber stamp of the Executive and judicial independence is virtually non-existent, this dispels the narrative that South Africa is a failed State.

The system of checks and balances still function well in the country. One cannot also undermine or understate the role of the fourth estate (media and civil society) which has also contributed towards upholding the Constitution, principles of accountability and transparency even when it was increasingly difficult to do so.

The values enshrined in the Constitution continue to be the glue that holds the country together. These values are enshrined in s1 of the Constitution and they are as follows:

(a) Human dignity, the achievement of equality and the advancement of human rights and freedoms;
(b) Non-racialism and non-sexism; and
(c) Supremacy of the Constitution and the rule of law.
25th Anniversary of the Constitution

The Minister informed the Committee that during his last political overview, the August house was informed of the 25th Anniversary of the Constitution. The DoJ&CD will continue during this year, with more events aimed at celebrating this milestone which will culminate in a symposium on the 25th Anniversary of the Constitution to be held during this financial year.

Entrenching the rule of law and fighting corruption and fraud

As the Zondo Commission draws to a close, Minister Lamola commended the Chief Justice for his sterling job at the Commission.

The Department is in full flight when it comes to the rebuilding processes of the National Prosecuting Authority. It is doing this by directing critical resources to the NPA to ensure that it has the human capital, and financial resources to respond to the many crimes which afflict communities, despite the challenging fiscal environment we find ourselves in.

For instance, it is quite evident that the biggest challenge for the Nation at the moment, is the supply of stable and reliable electricity and the provision of reliable passenger rail transport. Whilst the challenges at Eskom and Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (PRASA) are well documented, one of the most obvious factors is cable theft.

One of the indicators that the Department will be monitoring closely in the NPA's performance plan is that of cable theft convictions. This is an act of economic sabotage, now more than ever, the masterminds of those who benefit from plunging communities into darkness and train stoppages must be exposed and the arm of the law must catch up with them. Further, this new injection of resources must enable the NPA to combat organised crime, white collar crime and corruption.

In the past year, there has been progress that the Department can mention without any hesitation. The foundation of the Investigating Directorate was established by a highly skilled black woman, Adv Hermione Cronje and the transition from her to another highly skilled black woman, Adv Andrea Johnson has been seamless. Minister Lamola said that the Department wishes to use the opportunity to thank Adv Cronje for her service and also welcome Adv Johnson in her new role.

The Investigating Directorate has declared 82 investigations and enrolled 20 cases with 65 accused. It has also prioritised nine corruption matters for enrolment within the next six months.

In their own words, Adv Shamila Bathoi, and her Deputy, Adv Anton Du Plesiss, has said that the NPA is nearing a moment of high level prosecutions being executed without fear or favour. They should not be second guessed as they are better placed than everyone to tell no lies and claim no easy victories.

The Special Investigation Unit (SIU) is also proving to be a significant agent in the fight against corruption and maladministration. As it also prepares to mark 25 years of its existence, there is objective proof that it is vital for the accountability and consequence management framework as a State.

To date, the SIU has enrolled cases worth R 77 Billion in the Special Tribunal and High Court. The Department is now seized with how it can strengthen the cooperation between the SIU and other law enforcement agencies such as the Directorate for Priority Crimes Investigation and NPA, having learnt lessons from the methodology adopted in the fusion centre.

Minister Lamola told Committee Members that over and above all this work, in these plans, the Department is also mindful of the imminent and the already released Zondo Commission reports. The Special Commercial Crimes Courts have been established in every Province and the ones in Palmridge and Pretoria have been expanded to enable them to cope with the work that might come their way.

Consultations are underway with internal stakeholders to ensure that the review of South Africa’s anti-corruption architecture is a collective product. This review envisages an incremental approach with immediate action, to short term, medium term and long-term proposals. The Department also has a team working on the implementation plan of the various findings of the Zondo Commission recommendations which fall within the scope of their work. This plan will be presented at the appropriate time, to enable the Department to respond appropriately to the corruption cancer.

Former President Mandela warned the country about corruption when he delivered his State of the Nation Address on 05 February 1999 by saying:

“Our hope for the future depends also on our resolution as a nation in dealing with the scourge of corruption. Success will require an acceptance that, in many respects, we are a sick society.”

Fight against gender-based violence

The Minister told the Chairperson, that he would like to commend the Committee for the manner in which it has processed the three gender-based violence (GBV) Bills, which have since been assented to by President Cyril Ramaphosa.

Once again with the assistance of the Committee, the Department is building the machinery necessary to combat and address yet another pervasive and almost invisible pandemic in the form of GBV.

The three GBV Acts, namely: the Criminal and Related Matters Amendment Act, 2021, the Domestic Violence Amendment Act, 2021 and the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences and Related Matters) Amendment Act, 2021 cannot be ornaments which have no impact in communities. In this financial year, the DoJ&CD will be implementing these acts across the board and it will be unveiling a programme of action which is based on the various justice needs of communities across the country.

This month, the Department will launch its programme of action as a Ministry which will ensure that Justice Services are at the heart of the communities. The programme of action is called ‘The year of the community', in response to and implementing President Ramaphosa’s rallying call of “no one must be left behind”.

Carolina in Mpumalanga and Delft in the Western Cape have been identified as communities where the programme will start during the month of May to assess the state of Justice Services, improve the level of integration in the justice system and assess the GBV infrastructure with a specific focus on the new Acts and the National Strategic Plan on Gender-Based Violence and Femicide.

Review and repeal justice related apartheid era legislation

Three Bills will be introduced in this financial year, the Lower Courts Bill and the Magistrates’ Bill which will replace the current Magistrates’ Courts Act, 1944 and the Magistrates’ Act, 1993 respectively. The Regulation of Trusts Bill will be introduced to replace the current Trust Property Control Act, 1957.

The Trust Property Control Bill is the latest action to ensure that the anti-money laundering regime is improved. Under the current regime, trusts are used to hide assets. As a result, law enforcement agencies struggle to obtain accurate information on who the real beneficiaries of assets in trusts are. The Bill will address this issue to ensure that the Department's anti-money laundering legal dispensation is in line with the recommendations of the financial action task force and international best practice.

The Transkei Penal Code and the Riotous Assemblies Act will also be repealed. The latter Act will be replaced by the proposed Criminal Matters Amendment Bill.

These wide-ranging amendments seek to update legislation to be in line with the new constitutional order.

Modernising justice services

Minister Lamola said that the Covid-19 pandemic and the ransomware attack on the DoJ &CD IT systems, although with devastating consequences, presented the Department with an opportunity to fast track the modernisation of justice services as well as the overhaul of its IT infrastructure to make it fit for purpose. During this financial year, the Department intends to implement Phase Two of the online services in Maintenance, Protection Orders, Deceased Estate, and National Register on Sexual Offences and commence with Phase One of the State Attorneys online services.

Court Administration Model

The Minister told the Committee that the Judiciary has proposed a particular system of court administration informed by its own research. The Executive has conducted its own research and during this financial year, the Minister said that he intends, to approach Cabinet on the Executive’s response to the Judiciary’s Institutional Model.

The Executive’s response would also be part of the measures the Department intends to take towards implementing the recommendations of the National Planning Commission to accelerate reforms to implement a Judiciary-led independent court administration.

Office of the Chief Justice

In this financial year, the OCJ as a National Department will be evaluated in the main on three strategic outcomes as set out in the Department’s 2022/23 Annual Performance Plan (APP). The strategic outcomes are:

1. Effective and efficient administrative support;
2. Improved court efficiency; and
3. Enhanced judicial performance.

To achieve the above outcomes, the OCJ will expand and evaluate initiatives such as rolling out the Online Court solution to 5 Superior Courts. The Minister said that he is delighted to report that the development of the Online Court case management solution is complete.

The final solution has been piloted in the Gauteng Division of the High Court and the systematic roll out to all other Superior Courts will commence in this financial year. The project has also established a centralised Online Court helpdesk to provide support to both internal stakeholders (judges and court officials) and external stakeholders (legal practitioners).

Minister Lamola informed the Committee that the Leadership of the Magistracy expressed its intention to request the DoJ & CD to pursue a limited implementation of this solution in selected Magistrate Courts. Eventual implementation of this solution in the Superior Courts and Magistrate Courts will ensure true integration of the electronic, paperless court processes.

The OCJ remains committed to its Constitutional mandate of supporting the Judiciary and government mandate as outlined in the National Development Plan (NDP) and the Revised Medium Term Strategic Framework (MTSF). In supporting the Judiciary, the OCJ will continue to prioritise the capacitation of the South African Judicial Education Institute (SAJEI).

The Department will continue implementing new ways to deliver training services to serving and aspirant Judicial Officers. Part of this will involve ensuring that the operational model of SAJEI is adjusted to take advantage of available online platforms, and that SAJEI’S judicial educators are capacitated to operate under the new operational model.

The impact of the budget cuts resulting from the prioritisation of the National response to the Covid-19 pandemic over the past two years continues to be felt to this day. As such, the OCJ has to be innovative and develop new ways to operate under these constrained conditions in order for the Department to keep the Courts operational. To this end, it will continue to reprioritise its budget and operations to ensure that the delivery of core services, namely, support to the Courts, is not adversely affected.

Department of Correctional Services

When the devastating floods in Kwa-Zulu Natal wreaked havoc in communities, inmates through the Department of Correctional Services Self Sufficiency and Sustainability Model, contributed towards the social relief efforts. Vegetables, eggs, meat, milk, and bread, which were produced by inmates were donated to needy families and these brought much needed relief to communities. The donation demonstrates that inmates can contribute positively towards society when given an opportunity.

While inmates are incarcerated, the Department encourages them to adopt a positive outlook towards life and to acquire skills. This enables them to contribute positively to the social and economic lives of society upon their release. The Department is also pleased that correctional services will implement a new programme that will extend correctional and rehabilitation programmes to Remand Detainees who spend more than two months in its care.

Through self-sufficiency, the Minister told the Chairperson that the Department has been able to take off items such as eggs and pork on its procurement lists in the past financial year, it will then add more items on this list. Most of the DoJ&CD Management areas produce enough vegetables and bread for inmate rations. It will vigorously implement this programme so that it can continue saving millions for the fiscus as it did in the last financial year.

The Department is also encouraged that Treasury has approved 100% retention of revenue it generates through self-sufficiency. This is a major boost to the programme as resources will be reinvested towards its growth. Workshops have also been capacitated with the latest technology to enable them to produce inmate uniforms, staff uniforms and shoes in large quantities.

The Department is happy that it recently conducted an oversight visit to correctional centres and courts. In the visits, it also went to Mangaung and Kutama Sinthumule Private Correctional Facilities. The DoJ&CD manages contracts of Public Private Partnership correctional facilities in line with the Correctional Services Act. These private facilities are contractually obliged to contribute towards the purpose of the correctional system by maintaining and protecting a just and peaceful society.

The Department of Correctional Services (DCS) has indicated that when these contracts lapse, it will not be renewed and so the Department will take over the running of the facilities. There are already regulatory meetings to fulfil this objective, and the inspection of facilities to ensure they remain in good condition has started.

The Department has met with the Department of Public Works and Infrastructure (DPWI) to look at how it can, through offender labour, respond to minor maintenance at courts like installation of ramps for people living with disabilities, cleaning and minor renovations. It will continue engaging its counterparts and pilot several projects to find innovative ways to deliver infrastructure.

The Department is fully aware that its work in correctional services will ring hollow if a culture of consequence management in correctional services is not instilled. On 12 April 2022, Mr Stephen Maribulu Somo, who was stationed at Johannesburg Correctional Facility, was sentenced to five years imprisonment by the Johannesburg Regional Court for aiding an escape.

In the 2020/21 financial year, 94 Correctional Services officials were dismissed amongst those who were subjected to disciplinary action. The DCS is intensifying its campaign and processes to systematically and comprehensively prevent corruption and mismanagement, as well as ensure consequence management. It is the Department's hope to achieve this through the tightening of management systems, increasing compliance with policy and controls, internal investigation and sanction as well as referral to external law enforcement agencies where appropriate.

In conclusion, Minister Lamola said that the Department commits itself to work towards ensuring that all Departments and entities under the ministry meet their objectives. The focus will be more on the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development to ensure that it turns around this Department and resolve its challenges, some of which were inherited. No effort will be spared, effective consequence management will be implemented, and those who fail to do what they get paid for, will face the consequence of their actions.

Discussion

Mr W Horn (DA) appreciated the presentation by the Minister, and the “green shoots”, as the Government was calling them, that could be seen from the presentation. He appreciated the Minister’s undertaking to make work the Court Administration Model. That was something that had been “on ice” for quite some time. He appreciated that in 2022, Cabinet would finally establish a judicial elect court administration model. The sentiments around the DPWI were to be welcomed to an extent, in that he believed it was clear through the Committee's oversight visits that the current relationship with the DPWI in respect of smaller maintenance matters was not ideal. However, it was incumbent upon the Committee to say to the Minister that it was clear that the underperformance of the DPWI, which was a historical underperformance, had accelerated over the last two to three years. This underperformance was a “looming danger” for all Departments, and specifically for the DoJ&CD in respect of court infrastructure. It was a looming danger of a magnitude that cannot be overstressed. In that sense, the fact that the Minister was engaging with the DPWI around minor maintenance, and the increase of that delegation and the possible use of sentenced inmates were not good enough. Does the Minister have any plans to engage the DPWI on a more formal level around the absolute failure over the last few years to embark on any meaningful infrastructure maintenance (for which there was a dire need) at court buildings? What was the Minister’s current understanding of the challenges faced by court buildings throughout South Africa? Was there any process in place for the Minister and his Department to be aware of all of the challenges around court buildings?

Mr Horn had looked back at the Minister’s presentation from the same time on the previous year’s calendar. He believed that it was ultimately incumbent for the Committee to say to the Minister that on about six of the ten criteria that were identified last year, on which the DoJ&CD would have to prove significant improvement in performance, it was clear that with those six out of ten targets, the targets had not been reached. The other four targets were more aspirational targets around constitutionalism, and the understanding of the rule of law and Constitutionalism by South Africans, which was difficult to ultimately measure. The difficulty from the Committee's side was that if one looked towards modernised and digitised justice service platforms, it was interesting to note that this year, the Minister was silent about the Integrated Justice System. All were aware that a hack wiped out all gains in that regard. What was the status of that? What were the plans to revive that project, if at all?

The Masters services were identified last year as a key component which the DoJ&CD would be measuring. It was quite clear that nothing much had happened over the last 12 months to improve the accessibility, accountability and performance of the Masters Offices. It was a worry that the Minister did not feel it was important to address in his presentation to the Committee.

Regarding the reduction of crime and corruption through effective prosecution, it was worrying that the Minister said in the meeting that the past year had been used to establish a firm foundation for the Investigating Directorate. The country must once again look to the next six months for high-level prosecution. From the Committee's side, that is not good enough.

Mr Horn asked the Minister, to unpack his statement that some lessons had been learned from the Fusion Centre about the possibility of better cooperation between the SIU and NPA. It was worrying listening to presentations from specifically the NPA. One would want to hear whether more tangible proposals were on the way to Parliament to address that issue.

What was the status of the Integrated Inmate Management System (IIMS) in the DCS, which the Minister had not addressed in his presentation? He asked if the Integrated Justice System (IJS) had been a “money guzzler” without any real fruits to show at the DoJ&CD. If this is the case then the IIMS and the development thereof are the same “monster” at the DCS. What was the current status of that, and what were the plans going forward in respect of IIMS?

Mr S Swart (ACDP) noted that the Minister's political overview admitted the financial constraints that the Department was operating under, both the DoJ&CD and the DCS, particularly due to the Covid-19 pandemic and the flooding. He started by dealing with the issue related to the flooding and President Ramaphosa’s statement that there would be no room for corruption in spending to repair flood damage. The Committee appreciated the steps that were being taken, but there was a lot of scepticism amongst members of the public which President Ramaphosa referred to as well. He welcomed what the President said about real-time audits, and about strengthening financial controls, but he wanted the Minister to advise the Committee on improvements to the Fusion Centre, referred to by Mr Horn as well. The Fusion Centre was very efficient in detecting, speedily prosecuting and recovering funds that were misappropriated. Attention will be given to monitoring work together with the billions of Rands that would be required both in the short and long-term rebuilding following the devastating floods in KZN and parts of the Eastern Cape. Linked to that, an important issue that was raised was the protection of whistleblowers. Was that envisaged legislation? The Minister correctly referred to reviewing the issues related to anti-corruption. There were two aspects that were striking: One was improved protection for whistleblowers (referred to in the Zondo Commission report as well). Another was highlighting the legal obligation, which was likely in terms of s34 of the Prevention of Corrupt Activities Act, which placed an obligation on officials and any office bearer in the private sector to report any suspicious transactions over R100 000. He did not think that there had been any prosecutions in that regard.

He welcomed the Minister’s reference to infrastructure and cable theft at Eskom and the PRASA, and the attention in that regard. Were there any proposed legislative amendments? There was legislation in that sphere, but there has been speculation about scrap dealerships that seemed to be the main recipients of a lot of the stolen infrastructure. Were there any anticipated legislative amendments that were going to be brought in to amend those issues? He also welcomed the reference to the DCS and the fact that inmates contributed to social relief. That was very encouraging. That message needed to be promoted more widely as well, namely the role that the DCS played in that regard. The DCS were to be commended that inmates also, from a humanitarian aspect, were able to contribute vegetables, milk, meat, etc. The focus on rehabilitation, as well as on remand detainees, was an issue that was supported. He wanted to hear from the Minister on the issue of restorative justice programmes which he supported, and which many in the Department had also supported.

He noted that the Committee was unanimous when it referred to the issues relating to proposed amendments to legislation dealing with persons who paid admission of guilt fines for trivial offenses, mainly relating to the Disaster Management regulations and having criminal records. Was there any progress on relooking at those criminal records, given the fact that it had a very negative impact on those persons seeking employment? Many of those people would not realise that paying admission of guilt fines for trivial offenses would mean that they incur criminal records.

Ms W Newhoudt-Druchen (ANC) raised her concerns to both the Department’s entities and the Minister. Regarding GBV and femicide, she read with concern that there was a person who was accused of violence against a child, as well as murdering that child. This person was now in a correctional facility. At the same time, the accused made a case against the victim’s mother. This was happening in the Western Cape. She was concerned that the victims and the families of the victim are from a vulnerable sector of society. Perhaps such people did not have a better understanding of the justice system. But those who perpetrate GBV and femicide do sometimes have a better understanding of using the system against the victim and the victim’s family. What assistance is especially given to victims who, for example, attacked the perpetrator, but got charged for that? How can an inmate, who was already charged, also bring a charge against the victim’s family? There had been an increase in those kinds of issues against vulnerable groups, and especially against the victims of GBV and femicide. The Committee was now evaluating the APP. Legal Aid South Africa would come before it once again. Legal Aid South Africa has had a lot of budget cuts. It would also be given an additional responsibility to look at land issues. But with the budget cuts, what assistance would the Ministry be able to give to Legal Aid South Africa to also be able to deal with the land issues?

The SIU fell under the Minister’s portfolio. Ms Newhoudt - Druchen was very concerned to read that the SIU head in the Western Cape had his legal charges paid for by the Western Cape Government. He had fraud charges against him. The Provincial Government was paying for his legal costs. What were the Ministry and SIU doing about that? This is a staff member of the SIU who has fraud charges against him whose legal costs got paid by the Western Cape Government.

Adv G Breytenbach (DA) said that she would like a detailed explanation from the Minister about what the Department planned to do about the complete and utter failure of the DPWI to perform at all, regarding any of the buildings it was responsible for, and any matters that fell within its area of jurisdiction. What would the Department do about the mess? The new courts built in Limpopo and Mpumalanga were about to be condemned as unfit for human habitation. Who paid for those courts? How were they signed off? Why is there such an enormous waste of money? What was the Department going to do to ensure those responsible for that were held accountable? It was completely untenable. Having just come back from some oversight visits, all Committee Members were aware that prisons were in a terrible state. Prisons were now funding initiatives out of their own budgets, because the DPWI did not come to the party. When the Members asked the DPWI about that, it wrung its hands, looked skywards and said, ‘no money, no budget, no nothing, no never’. It was a totally dysfunctional relationship, and it could not be allowed to continue. It was her opinion that the Minister needed to spend much more time telling the Committee what the Department would do to rectify the completely dysfunctional relationship with the DPWI. The DPWI needed to be held accountable, and she needed to know how the Department would do that. “Totally useless does not begin to cover what it was that we saw” is what Adv Breytenbach expressed.

The court recording equipment contract also referred to the IISM issue. The Department had a contract for a fixed period of time, and at the end of the fixed period, the contract expired, but nothing was put in place to deal with that. What kind of system did the Director-General (DG) have where one started negotiating a new contract months or years after a contract had expired? For something as vital as court recording equipment, if the equipment does not work, the courts come to a standstill. South African courts are courts of record. How is it possible that a contract of that magnitude was allowed to expire with nothing in its place? It was no good to put the blame on Covid-19, adjudication committees and other things. It came as no surprise that the contract expired; it was due to expire. A year before the time of expiration, and long before Covid-19, measures should have been taken to do something to ensure that there would be either something in its place, or the contract would continue. This ex post facto negotiating of contracts was unbelievably poor management. She could not imagine how a Department the size of the DoJ&CD did not have something in place that warned it about contracts that were about to expire, especially contracts of that magnitude. It was unacceptable.

The IT systems in the Department were in a shoddy state and this has left Adv Breytenbach at a loss for words. The Committee was at the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA), and it was told that the Justices of the SCA and their staff were required to use their own private cellular data to get their jobs done, because there was no connectivity in that court. How is the SCA supposed to function? How did one expect the justice system to keep working, to keep processing cases, and to keep a quality system going, and it had no connectivity? In 2022 everything depends on connectivity. The SCA did not even have telephones. It is an unbelievably depressing mess, and it needs to be attended to. The Minister needed to unpack how he was going to do all of those things. None of this could come as a surprise to the Minister. It was no good giving a general overview every year that did not dig deep into those issues. Every year, there was a glossing over of tiny little gains made, and the big issues were swept under the carpet. This could no longer continue. It was unacceptable. She said that the Minister had to take this beating because the buck stops with him as the political head of the Departments in question.

The Minister had said that he spent the last few years laying the foundation for the Investigating Directorate. To say that that was gobsmackingly depressing did not begin to cover it. The Investigative Directorate should have hit the ground running, should have had a building and should have been staffed and up and running within months. It was not a project that was going to last forever. It had a five-year lifespan. With three years to lay the groundwork, Adv Breytenbach did not know what to say. She was not often at a loss for words, but she did not know what to say. What had people been doing, if they had only been laying the groundwork? The Investigative Directorate was brought in to deal with high-profile prosecutions, mostly emanating from state capture. Those cases were not new. The information about such cases had been available for years. Cases were laid years ago, some of which she had laid herself. She was being told now that there was only groundwork being laid. The groundwork should have been laid years ago. The Investigating Directorate should have collected all of those cases, and got them court-ready within not more than a year, and the cases should have been in court and been tried. There should have been high-profile convictions already. The Minister said that South Africans can look forward to high-profile prosecutions in the next six months. South Africans had been looking forward to prosecutions in the next six months for the last three years. It was difficult to gather any enthusiasm in order to look forward to anything at the moment. The tenure of the Investigating Directorate was almost over, and South Africa had seen nothing. It had heard a lot, but saw nothing. South Africans were tired of waiting. The Integrated Justice System Programme, more than 20 years down the line, had nothing to show for it. There were just excuses and every year there were more excuses. The Committee saw no progress. For all intents and purposes, the Integrated Justice System did not exist. She asked the Minister to tell the Committee how many billions had been spent on the Integrated Justice System. “What can be shown for it would struggle to fill the bottom of a thimble. Laying the ground for the Zondo Commission report was also gobsmackingly depressing. The Zondo Commission had been on the go for five years. The information about what was presented to Judge Zondo was available five years before that thanks to the investigative press. Ten years down the line, the Department was laying the groundwork for prosecutions connected to the Zondo Commission. It did not cut it. None of that was new. Such information was not discovered in the last three or four years. The investigation should have been finalised years ago. The prosecutors should have been in court, ready for prosecution, years ago. To tell the Commission that it could look forward to prosecutions in the next six months, was too little too late. That should have been done years ago. Adv Breytenbach wanted the Minister to tell the Committee why it should look forward to the next six months, listen to laying the groundwork; and listen to next year, things will be better. That had been the story for a very long time. Things were not better, and the groundwork had not been laid. She did not think that anybody in the meeting should be waiting excitedly for high-profile prosecutions in the next six months. She was very happy to “eat her words publicly” because one would be happier than her if such prosecutions did happen.

The Chairperson said that he would watch that space, and remind Adv Breytenbach if there were any high-profile prosecutions.

Adv Breytenbach replied that she would be watching that space very carefully and that the Chairperson would not have to remind her.

Responses

Adv Doctor Mashabane, Director-General, DoJ & CD, responded to questions. The Department raised the issue of the DPWI last year when the Department appeared, when it presented its APP and the general challenges that it was facing. The Department was making some progress in this regard. Addressing the question on general maintenance, he said that with the financial allocations the Department had from the DPWI, it could only perform maintenance to the amount of R100 000 because this was the amount allocated to it. The Department had made progress, and in principle, it had been agreed that that amount had to be increased to about R1 Million per incident. There were just some requirements that the Department needed to finalise with the DPWI. It felt that once that was done, the Department would be able to deal with a lot of the major challenges that it had across its infrastructure, and across the country. It was finalising that, including it having some technical capacity and skills in order to take care of some of those challenges. In broad terms, the Members would have seen that in the past three years, the Department had not been doing well with expenditure on the capital budget in relation to infrastructure. That was due to the DPWI’s challenges and internal constraints. The last time that the Department had been advised that progress had been made with building new infrastructure and renovations were when there were entities involved such as the Independent Development Trust (IDT), albeit with all the challenges that were there. The Department was having a discussion on looking into the possibility of getting entities with capacity that could assist and deal with that, and address the infrastructure backlog that it had, for both renovations and general repairs. The Department would make sure that in the next six months, it had an arrangement that would allow it, through that facility of a third-party entity, to take care of infrastructure. With the way it was, even if the Department came back the following year, it would still be having the same problem if it did not have that arrangement. It might be helpful to have a joint Committee meeting with the DPWI as well so that the DPWI could also express the challenges that it had as it sought to assist the Department. In terms of the Government Immovable Asset Management Act (GIAMA), the DPWI had numerous responsibilities. Generally, the DPWI seemed to be reluctant to give the Department the responsibility to manage the infrastructure. But with the proposals that the Department had made, it thought that it could make some progress in addressing those challenges.

The appointment of facilities management for the new courts, including Plettenberg Bay, Mbombela and Polokwane was part of the proposal that the Department had made, and the DPWI was open to that. The Department hoped to finalise that very soon, and the next time it came back to give quarterly updates, it would be able to update the Committee.

Mr Makgothi Thobakgale, Acting National Commissioner, Department of Correctional Services, provided a response on the issue of IIMS, specifically on where the DCS was with development. The DCS had developed and tested the module for remanded detainees. It was continuing to roll out the IIMS for two correctional centres. With the contract itself, the DCS was reviewing the work that had been done. It was also claiming penalties with regards to the work that had not been done so far. It was activating the system so that it could work in an integrated way with legacy systems in the DCS. The DCS was also working on the issues addressed by the Auditor-General of South Africa (AGSA). It was looking closely into the contract itself, and was assessing the contract with the view to ensure that it continued to get value for money. The DG for the DoJ&CD touched on the issue of the DPWI. The DCS was working together with the Acting DG for the DPWI to integrate the work that was done by IT and the Development Bank of South Africa (DBSA) to ensure that the skills that the DCS, the DPWI and the two had were integrated, so that the project pipeline could be unblocked. The DCS could also make sure that it approached the maintenance of correctional facilities in a systematic manner instead of looking at each correctional facility as a standalone entity. With that approach, the DCS hoped to address the deficiencies that were there in the project implementation processes that were involved in infrastructure matters.

Deputy Minister Mr John Jeffrey responded to questions. Addressing whistleblower protection he said that there was an amendment to the Protected Disclosures Act in the last term, which was put out for public comment and processed by the Committee. The Whistleblowers Protection Act was about protection for people in the workplace. The main issue for the whistleblowers is their physical protection. Those were issues that were being looked at. The final recommendations from the Zondo Commission were awaited before they could be finalised. Similarly, with the scrap metal issue, there was an amendment in the last administration on tightening up legislation in the penalties for theft of metal which also included the matter of scrap metal dealers and the export of illegal scrap metal. One could re-look at whether any further legislative amendments were needed. It was perhaps something that the Committee wanted to work with the South African Police Service (SAPS) on how much of that was a problem of things not being implemented to the extent that they should have been.

The criminal records for admission of guilt fines would be in the Judicial Matters Amendment Bill. There was only one more Judicial Matters Amendment Bill that was coming, and he thought that the Bill was getting delayed by new things being added to it. The Bill was still very much on the table and that Bill should be tabled by the middle of 2022.

Responding to Ms Newhoudt-Druchen’s questions about an inmate awaiting trial who laid a charge against the victim’s mother, he said that one needed to get more information. Anyone could make a complaint and lay a charge; it was whether, on the evaluation of that charge, anything was done about it. A person was entitled to lay a charge; perhaps nine times out of ten, they had no basis and were just making it up. There could be an odd chance where a person had the basis on which to lay a complaint.

The government of the Western Cape had its own body which it called the SIU, which was not in terms of the SIU Act. Perhaps the problem was that the SIU name was not copyrighted. He thought that it was an entirely different thing that Ms Newhoudt-Druchen was speaking about.

The Deputy Minister told the Committee that the best person to respond to questions about the court recording technology is the accounting officer, because his understanding was that it was advertised timeously before the contract expired. The problem was then that the process got overturned, and the contract was re-advertised (with similar problems). It was not as if it was left waiting for the period to expire. He agreed with Adv Breytenbach that what happened was not acceptable at all. He also agreed that there needed to be proper contract and consequence management for the people responsible. It was not something that the Department could let stand.

Deputy Minister Inkosi Patekile Holomisa said that the Minister and the Acting National Commissioner had stated what needed to be stated unless there was something that the Members wanted him to address on the Minister’s overview.

The Chairperson said that Mr Swart made a good point when he said there was going to be more in-depth introspection and ventilating of issues when the Committee met with the Department and its institutions. The Committee would have to raise those detailed issues. The Members were also aware that the meeting was forward-looking. A lot of the Members’ questions were about how the Department would do various things.

The Minister said that the Department had meetings with the DPWI to discuss infrastructure, including at the level of the Ministry. The Department was supposed to have another one the previous week, but it could not happen. The Department was hoping that within the next two weeks, it would have a feedback meeting where some of the issues that both the Acting National Commissioner and the DG spoke about would be made more concrete on the devolution of some of those responsibilities and powers from the DPWI. The meeting would also look into what the DoJ&CD needed to do about capacitating itself, informed by its own budget for engineers and professionals that the Department needed to be able to respond to some of those issues. On the issue where Departments were struggling to find each other, there was the fact that the devolution of powers must also come with a budget. The Department was hopeful that in the next meeting, it would be able to find a solution. For the Department, it was clear that the devolution must be followed by the budget. If it was not followed by a budget, the devolution may not achieve its intended objective. With some of those powers, the DPWI also had Human Resources (HR) within itself in terms of capability. Hopefully, the Department would be able to iron out those issues and also see how to deal with the issue of capacitation to be able to implement some of those initiatives.

The hacking of the system affected performance and services of the Masters office. It was true that the queues and the long delays were not acceptable to the public. Hence, there were online systems to enable people to fast-track services. There were also programmes to enable people to deal with cutting of queues for delivery. When Departmental entities came before the Committee, it could get direct responses on that matter.

Speaking about what the Department was doing with the Investigating Directorate and its future plans, Minister Lamola said that it was not like the Department had been in slumberland. There were cases that the Investigating Directorate had already taken to court, which were on the court’s roll. There were cases that the Committee was aware of, such as the asbestos case, Estina Dairy Farm, and others. The issue was to ensure that the number of cases which had come from the Zondo Commission was also being attended to. The Investigating Directorate was being given support to be able to respond to that. There must also be a response to the challenges that the Investigating Directorate faced, in terms of its permanency. The Department was in agreement that it should evolve into a permanent structure that would reflect what the Department envisioned in an anti-corruption institution. Such an institution would also take into account the recommendations of the Zondo Commission, and inputs from other stakeholders, on what institutions must be the permanent institutions that evolved out of the Investigating Directorate.

The Minister told the Department that it was still continuing with restorative programmes. Some were held in the last quarter of 2021. Because of Covid-19, the Department was not able to do the restorative programmes in the manner it wanted. The Department was resuscitating such programmes, and running them in their original format.

There had been massive budget cuts to Legal Aid South Africa, which affected its day-to-day operations. The Department shared the concerns raised by the Committee that the land rights management facility had been brought to Legal Aid – such a thing must be followed by a budget. The Department already had a discussion with Treasury. Treasury had committed to ensuring that that was the case and that the land rights management facility must be followed by a budget. There was a clear commitment from Treasury to look into that matter.

The Department had introduced a new governance framework for the IJS, which was a three-tiered structure. The structure included the IJS Implementation Committee and the IJS Board (which was chaired by the DG). The Minister was informed that the Board had its first sitting, which would monitor the implementation of the IJS projects. The three-tiered structure also included the IJS Ministerial Committee, which the Minister intended to convene very soon for all the Ministers that were impacted by the IJS programme. The new governance framework would bring stability and accountability. The programmes would make all accounting officers involved in the investments made in their Departments. It would also enable achievements accrued to the member Departments to be reported through the IJS programme, because at that stage, some of the achievements were not reported at that level. Some achievements included the rollout of the [unclear 01:24:43] for Legal Aid South Africa, and the Online Court, which was part of the broader integrated system. There was also the rollout of the Person Verification Services (PVS) by SAPS in the police stations, and by the South Africa Social Security Agency (SASSA) to verify beneficiaries and combat fraud. There was work that had already been done, but it sat in various departments, and was not properly reported as the fruits of the outcomes of the IJS programme. It did not mean that there were no challenges. There were still challenges, including the automatic biometric information project that was residing within the Department of Home Affairs (DHA), which the Department hoped would make the life of the entire system easy once implemented. The Department would have to ensure that the Governance Committee of both the DGs and Ministers sought to ensure that there was implementation of monitoring and evaluation of processes. If the Department had all of those factors, it would make things easier, because the DGs of the line function Departments would ensure that there was accountability among the Chief Information Officers, and also ensure that things were indeed being implemented in those Departments.

Briefing by the Office of the Chief Justice and Judicial Administration on Annual Performance Plan and Budget 2022/23

Ms Memme Sejosengwe, Secretary-General (SG), OCJ, told the Committee that the Head of Strategy and Planning would deliver the presentation.

Mr Itumeleng Malao, Chief Director: Strategy and Systems, OCJ, presented.

2022/2023 Annual Performance Plan

Programme One: Administration

To realise the outcome of “Effective and efficient administrative support”, the OCJ had a number of outputs which were key to achieving this particular outcome, with each output indicator having an annual target for the 2022/23 financial year, and plans to grow achievements over the Medium-Term Expenditure Framework (MTEF).

1.1. Audit outcome for the OCJ: Over the MTEF, a priority is to achieve a clean audit outcome for the 2022/23 financial year.
1.2. Percentage of tenders awarded to suppliers with level 4 and above Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment (BBBEE) status (annual target: 80%).
1.3. Percentage of designated employees (Senior Management Service members & other categories) who submitted financial disclosures within timeframes (annual target: 100%).
1.4. Percentage of vacant posts on funded establishment (annual target: 10% or lower).
1.5. Percentage of staff in the department comprised of youth (annual target: 30%).
1.6. Percentage of women representation in Senior Management Service (SMS) (annual target: 50%).
1.7. Percentage of people with disabilities representation in the Department (annual target: 2%).
1.8. Number of Service Centres with Court Online system rolled out (annual target: 5).
1.9. Number of Employee Health and Wellness (EHW) programmes implemented within the OCJ(annual target: 9).
1.10. Percentage of reported fraud cases investigated within 60 working days (annual target: 75%).
1.11. Number of Fraud prevention and Anti-Corruption awareness sessions conducted (annual target: 25).

There were also Covid-19 related indicators and targets, with each having an annual target of four.

1.1 Number of Covid-19 Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) inspections conducted within the OCJ.
2.1 Number of Covid-19 awareness programmes implemented within the OCJ.
3.1 Number of Covid-19 related training conducted for Safety Officers.
4.1 Number of Covid-19 compliance reports produced.
5.1 Number of Covid-19 pandemic risk mitigation reports produced.

Programme Two: Superior Court Services

The outcome of “Improved court efficiency” had the following output indicators:

2.1. Percentage of default judgments finalised by Registrars within 14 days from date of receipt of application (annual target: 74%).
2.2 Percentage of taxations of legal bills of costs finalised within 60 days from date of set down (annual target: 80%).
2.3. Percentage of warrants of release (J1) delivered within one day of the release issued (annual target: 100%).
2.4. Number of monitoring reports on law reporting project produced (annual target: 4).
2.5. Number of Judicial Case Flow Management Performance reports produced (annual target: 4).
2.6. Number of reports on enhancement of court order integrity produced (annual target: 4).

Programme Three: Judicial Education and Support

The outcome of “Enhanced judicial performance” had the following output indicators:

3.1. Number of judicial education courses conducted (annual target: 110).
3.2. Number of research monographs on judicial education produced (annual target: 2).
3.3. Number of monitoring reports on the management of litigations produced (annual target: 5).
3.4. Number of reports on judicial appointments and judicial complaints produced (annual target: 3).
3.5 Number of reports on status of disclosures for Judges' Registrable Interests produced (annual target: 2).

Financial Information

Mr Casper Coetzer, Chief Financial Officer (CFO), OCJ, presented.

Programme

- For Administration, the budget allocation was R255 million for the 2022/23 financial year, growing to R271 million in the next three years.
 - Superior Court Services was allocated R958 million, growing to R960 million in the third year.
- Judicial Education and Support was allocated R52 million, growing to R55 million in the next three years.
- Judges’ salaries (Direct charges) were allocated R1.122 billion in the first year, growing to R1.175 billion in the third year.
- The total budget of the OCJ was R2.388 billion in year one, which would grow to R2.463 billion in the third year.

Economic Classification

- Compensation of employees (including judge’s salaries and voted funds for salaries of officials) was allocated R1.768 billion. More specifically, the voted salaries Cost of Employment (COE) ceiling for the first year was R780 million of the R1.768 billion.
- Goods and services would grow from R371 million in 2022/23 to R381 million in 2024/25.
- Transfers and subsidies (which were mainly where the judges’ gratuities were paid from in the direct charge classification) would grow from R135 million to R142 milion.
- Purchase of capital assets would grow from R112 million to R120 million.

The main issue that the OCJ had been reporting consistently on was the issue of budget, and the effect of budget cuts on it. Another remained the issue of compensation of employees. These had been consistently reported as a problem for the OCJ.

Updated Key Risks

Mr Malao indicated the risks associated with each outcome, and what the OCJ would do to mitigate those risks.

Effective and efficient administrative support

a) Possible exposure to Fraud and Corruption.

- Risk mitigation:

i. Continuous awareness of policies.
ii. Strengthen internal controls relating to fraudulent court orders.
iii. Monitor the implementation of fraud prevention and anti-corruption strategy.

b) Delays to implement the Online Court system due to external dependencies.

- Risk mitigation:

i. Reinforce stakeholder relations to ensure commitment pertaining to project resourcing.

c) Possible cyber and information security incidents (breaches and hacking).

- Risk mitigation:
i. Accelerate the implementation of the Information Security Management programme.
ii. Conduct network and vulnerability audits.                                                      
iii. Establishment of the Threat and Vulnerability Management programme.

d)  Inadequate resources to capacitate the OCJ in order to operate in the new normal.

- Risk mitigation:

i. Reprioritise the available resources to implement the new way of doing business.
i. Implement and monitor compliance to the COVID-19 regulations.
ii. Deep cleaning and sanitisation of the affected area at the courts and National Office after the confirmed cases were reported.

Improved court efficiency

a) Inadequate administrative support to ensure court efficiency.
- Risk mitigation:
i. Prioritise the appointment of Registrars.
ii. Continuous training of the Registrars.

Enhanced judicial performance

a) Inadequate resources to conduct judicial education courses.

- Risk mitigation:
i. Implementation of the virtual and e-learning module for Judicial Education.

Discussion

Adv Breytenbach said that looking through the previous two years’ reports, the issues raised remained the same. Her most recent concern was the oversight visit to the SCA, which left the Committee feeling deeply concerned and quite angry at how that court, which was a very important court in South Africa’s judicial system was being treated. The SCA had a number of infrastructure challenges. What was the relationship between the OCJ and the DPWI regarding infrastructure challenges faced by the court? Did the OCJ get involved in those issues, and assist the courts? For example, Justice Mandisa Maya, Judge President of the Supreme Court of Appeal of South Africa, explained to the Committee that the roof of the Appeal Court had been leaking quite badly for the last few years, to the extent that ceilings needed to be replaced regularly. But nothing was done to fix that. Contractors would only patch up the leaks and water would find the weakest point and get through. She saw no sense in spending large amounts of money on patching the roof of a historic building that was constantly being damaged by rain. The air conditioning had been out of order since 2012. It was unstable or barely usable. It was now 2022. It had not been replaced, and could not be repaired. A contractor would be sent in, who would then repair it for half a day, at great cost (hundreds of thousands), but because the system had not been maintained for ten years, it was completely useless. It then broke down again within hours, and that money was wasted. It was absolutely fruitless and wasteful expenditure. It made no sense – she suggested spending that money on replacing the air conditioning system. The SCA was designed in such a fashion that none of the courtrooms had outside windows. If there was no air conditioning, there was no air. And yet, money was being spent on patch working a system that was so dilapidated that it could not be repaired. The SCA needed a new air conditioning system. Is the Committee seriously suggesting that the Supreme Court of Appeal must function without air conditioning in 2022?

The SCA was on a load-shedding schedule whereas the High Court was not on a load-shedding schedule, and neither was the Premier of the Province. These entities had lights 24 hours a day, seven days a week. The SCA got load-shedding on a regular basis. Does the OCJ get involved in those issues, and does it help to address the issues? If so, could the OCJ say how it did that?

The SCA had no access for wheelchairs and the lift shaft was flooded with water. The SCA was unable to find anybody who could pump the water out or fix it. The lift just does not work. If anybody needed to access the court in a wheelchair, they could not, because there were too many stairs, and it was impossible. That was an unacceptable approach in 2022.

The Committee had been told for some time about the gains made in court-led administration model process. Adv Breytenbach wanted to hear what the progress was to date, and what the deadlines were for finalising that process.

President Maya also raised the issue of IT equipment. The judges got systems and computers forced on them that cost vast amounts of money, which they did not need. Judges could manage with much cheaper models, but when they suggested that, they were told that they had to take those they got. Could that issue be addressed?

There were problems with the DoJ&CD who clearly could not get their acts together with regards to contract management in relation to court automation. That had a serious knock-on effect on the courts, so much so that the courts just closed and could not dispense with justice at all. South Africans who got up at 3am and caught three taxis to get to court, got sent home because the recording equipment was not working. That was not acceptable. People did not deserve to be treated in that fashion. What could the OCJ do about that? Was it involved in those negotiations, and if so, how was it involved, and was it making any progress. If it was not involved, what could the Committee do to facilitate that?

To her horror, Adv Breytenbach discovered that the system that kept the automated court records was dilapidated, failing and did work. That could not happen in 2022. Once again, it pointed to a sadly inadequate system in the DoJ&CD (and perhaps in the OCJ of maintaining electronic databases of very important information. How was that being addressed, how did the OCJ approach that? If it was having difficulty with it, was there some way that the Committee could assist in addressing what was, in the Committee’s view a very important issue?

Ms Newhoudt-Druchen asked when the last engagement between the OCJ and DPWI was. When was the last engagement to raise the concerns on infrastructure, the air conditioning, and all of those challenges?

She saw that the OCJ had a consultation with the Department of Women, Youth and Persons with Disabilities (DWYPD). What was the purpose of the consultation, and what were the outcomes?

Mr Horn asked about the planned rollout of the Online Court system, on what was called the five high courts. Had those courts been identified, and if so, which were they, and what were the criteria used to identify the first five? The OCJ mentioned the risk of it being prevented from fully rolling out the system due to external dependencies on the State Information Technology Agency (SITA), and the DHA. What was the status of the OCJ engagement with role-players in respect of IJS? The Committee heard that morning that the latest response from the Ministry in the DoJ&CD was to say that the problems with IJS would be arrested because there was a Board in place. Assuming that putting a Board in place would assist that, was the OCJ then represented on the Board? How big, in the OCJ assessment, was the risk that those external dependencies would ultimately prevent the rollout of the five high courts this year?

Towards the end of last year, the OCJ presentation said that the upgrade of the ICT system was stalled due to what was called the “non-responsiveness of the market”. Could the Committee be assured that ultimately, despite those challenges in awarding a contract to a preferred service provider, that basic upgrade of the ICT infrastructure in fact took place?

It was envisaged that approximately one in five of the people employed by the OCJ in the Superior Court Services programme would be “shed” come 2024/2025, with the number of staff being reduced from 2 010 to 1 682. How would the OCJ go about achieving that? Had there been an exercise undertaken to identify who would be those persons whose functions would be replaced by the online system? If so, what was the current employment status of those people, would they still be eligible to be employed by 2024/2025? Ultimately, that was a very worrying thing, in the sense that if it was somebody who was in full-time, permanent employment at the OCJ, making those posts redundant would have a massive financial impact. Mr Horn told the Committee that he was asking that question mindful of the fact that the budgetary allowance for salaries remained a constant issue (as had been identified by the CFO).

The Committee was assured on numerous occasions during the course of 2021 that the Deputy Minister was involved in coming up with a proper plan to address the case backlogs that were first compounded by Covid-19 and then by the CRT. It was also informed that the OCJ and the judiciary would play a leading role. What had transpired to come up with that final case backlog plan?

Previously, the OCJ indicated that it would be dealing with a learning exercise and investigation as to what caused the previous breaches. Cyber security was still identified as an ongoing and present risk. The Committee did not necessarily want all the full details around what was being done, but it was a bit worrying if it was presented as a future exercise, specifically that network vulnerabilities, audits and programmes were to be established, if one considered that the previous breaches happened as far back as 2020. It was now 2022, and from the presentation, it seemed that the risk remained as it previously was. Had at least some basic due diligence unfolded to update the previous breach to cyber security to give better protection since 2020?

There was a statement that Mr Horn failed to understand on the face of it. “In the ranks of the OCJ, the necessary skills to operate in the new normal were absent”. He assumed it referred to Covid-19. It was an astounding thing to say if one assumed that Covid-19 was here to stay, as medical experts would say. What had the OCJ done since 2020 to bring that skillset into play? If it had not done much, what was the plan going forward? One could not have a situation where public institutions just closed for days on end for deep cleaning and other things. Surely, one must be past that by now. That statement really worried him specifically that the OCJ was still at that stage.

Mr Swart noted the background of what Adv Breytenbach had said about what role the OCJ played, since many of the issues related to the DPWI. In addition to what Adv Breytenbach said, apparently there was a useless backup generator. That tied up with the issue relating to load-shedding, and there was apparently a letter written to the OCJ by the SCA requesting that it should be treated as a national key point. Was there any progress in that? Clearly, it was untenable that the SCA was subject to load-shedding. The SCA should have a backup generator. Apparently, there were problems with basics such as telephones. It seemed that the OCJ had not been able to assist with that that was the feedback that the Committee got from the President of the SCA.

He wanted to ask a broader question on the budgeting process for the judiciary. The Committee appreciated the fact that the OCJ played a strong role in that regard. What role does the judiciary play in the broader budgeting process? Does the judiciary have any direct access to Treasury? A few years ago, Members were in the Constitutional Court when the annual report was delivered by the Chief Justice. He indicated that there was no input from his office side beside the budgeting process with Treasury. The Committee was already aware of this via its recent visit to the SCA where President Maya indicated a lack of consultation with the judiciary on spending on equipment to be used by judicial officers. The officers indicated that there was the purchase of expensive laptops for example that were sometimes not needed. Parliament had a similar concern with the budgeting process for Parliament itself, where it was three separate legs in terms of the Constitution.

There had been concerns about court orders in the past. He asked for clarity as to what systems were in place to safeguard the integrity of court processes and court orders? That was an aspect that must be of great concern to all if there were issues related to leaking of fraudulent court orders. What was being done to enhance those processes? From the Committee’s perspective, it would be concerned about the budget cuts and the impact that would have on the OCJ. As indicated, those would have an impact on the operation of the superior courts in the country, such as the High Courts, the SCA and the Constitutional Court, particularly when it came to vacancies. It might be helpful if the OCJ were to highlight the very urgent issues when it came to that so that the Committee had a full appreciation of what the impact would be egg: increasing backlogs at all the superior courts and local circuit courts, training programmes would have to be scaled down. The Committee needed to know about those implications because Parliament was the one that approved the budget.

Case lines had been very effective and Mr Swart commended the OCJ and the Chief Justice for the process of case lines, but it needed to be rolled out more broadly to all superior courts. He understood that that was going to take place in this financial year. Was that still on course? His experience with case lines in the North and South Gauteng High Courts was that it was very effective. The Committee wanted a timeframe for the rolling-out of those systems, specifically Online Court and case lines to the superior courts. The issue related to the financial constraints was the main concern that he had.

Responses

Ms Sejosengwe said that the OCJ would answer the questions together that were related.

From the OCJ side as administration, that was a policy that required the Executive to engage with the views and positions adopted by the Judiciary in the institutional models report that was submitted to the Executive some years ago. From the OCJ’s side, it would only play the role of input with regards to the policy when the Minister began to engage with that process. The Minister would also be engaged with the Cabinet on that. As the OCJ administration, it would be guided by the Ministry and the Executive regarding the latter’s response and positions on judiciary court-led administration. Therefore, the OCJ could not on its own initiate any progress on that.

The OCJ was aware of what was said in the past regarding the case backlog and the measures that were put in place. As Committee Members were aware, those matters fell squarely within the role of the Chief Justice, the Heads of Court and the Judiciary. She was not aware that the OCJ would be leading at any stage, but she thought that it was the judiciary that led on that part.

She responded to the question of how the Online Court system would impact the staff in the courts, and how the permanent jobs would be affected. There was a question about the risk of permanent jobs being rendered redundant because of the automation of the Online Court system, etc. The OCJ had always operated in administration with constraints on the number of staff required to serve the courts effectively. In all the courts, starting with the largest, which was Gauteng, through to the smallest, although the challenges would differ from court to court, some limitations remained the same. The OCJ had never had an instance where it had a sufficient number of officials to do the work, especially that relating to its core business, which was court processes. It had always operated on a deficit when it came to skills, as well as the competencies and people to do the work. Against that background, when automation comes, the natural process would be that with those areas that the OCJ had not been able to do, if it freed up the hands of the employees who were there, it would be looked at in that context. But it did not necessarily mean that any job was going to be rendered redundant. She did not foresee that eventuality happening in the courts, and she could speak with authority on that. There was natural attrition which consisted of those people who had been in the system for a long time that were now retiring from the courts. Those retirements were mostly in the core business of the courts, in court processes. The replacement thereof also becomes an issue with regards to the budget cuts that the CFO had already alluded to. Ms Sejosengwe and the CFO engaged with Human Resources (HR) on that matter to constantly look at how the COE budget impacted staff, and on the human capacity of the organisation. In doing so, the OCJ made sure that as attrition happened, as it lost some of the people who had been there for a long time and were skilled in the institutional court process, it prioritised how to replace such people. She assured the Committee that there was no risk of permanent jobs being made redundant and people would be re-skilled in other areas.

Addressing the SCA issues raised by the Committee relating to the President of the SCA, Ms Sejosengwe and the team were not aware of any instances where the OCJ procured any expensive laptops or gadgets for the judges without any consultation, or spent money that was not supposed to be spent on those items. When Covid-19 hit the courts, as it hit the country, the computers that the courts had were not ready to do work virtually. It meant that if a computer that a specific judge had was not compatible to be able to go virtual, the OCJ had to procure laptops and computers that would be able to assist the courts to function virtually, as was the case in the last two years. There was no official who would go and buy any computer for any judge, and just knock on the door, arrive and present it. The OCJ did have a committee of Judges that also looked at ICT. There was a lot of governance that was in place in relation to how the OCJ consulted with Judges on those matters. All the courts were involved and engaged. She was not trying to say that the OCJ had perfect staff who would do everything right however, mistakes might be made. But she could vouch that the OCJ had never bought anybody a computer that he or she did not need.

The issue of judges having to buy data themselves was raised. There was an instance recently where SITA was off. When SITA was off, the courts switched to Vodacom because that was the backup they had. Courts also had Mimecast as a backup when its systems had glitches. The OCJ was not in control of SITA, and therefore when SITA was affected, it was not only the OCJ that was affected. The entirety of government that was linked to SITA was affected. She could understand the frustration of the Judges. At the same time, it was not necessarily the OCJ that was cutting Judges off from connectivity. There was backup to enable the Judges and staff of the courts to operate. When the Judges were working at home as Covid-19 hit, and to make sure that they functioned, they were paid for data that they used. Not only Judges, but also officials linked to support the Judges were paid for data. There was a policy in place on that.

Ms Sejosengwe wanted to remind the Committee that the OCJ’s facilities and security management functions were still retained by the DoJ&CD, so its engagement was via the DoJ&CD or to the DPWI, and that was not an excuse. But at an official level, the OCJ engaged with officials in the DPWI as and when the need arose. The OCJ did not have control over that function, although it was not trying to shy away from the responsibility.

Mr Coetzer dealt with questions on the budget. Because the OCJ was a National Department, it was guided and bound by the Public Finance Management Act (PFMA) in terms of the budget processes and principles. Over and above the PFMA, s54 of the Superior Courts Act also prescribed the process of the engagement by the judiciary with the Minister of the DoJ&CD at the time of budget submission. In practice, the heads of courts were engaged on their budget needs and submissions by the Provincial heads. These were then combined into a consolidated budget for the OCJ National office. That consolidated budget was then submitted to the Budget Committee in Treasury and to the Minister of the DoJ&CD. Because the OCJ was functioning as a National Department, there was no direct interaction between the judiciary and Treasury, when the judiciary’s needs as an arm of state should be addressed. That was the only way that the budget was being dealt with. Through engagement with the heads of court, their needs and priorities were submitted, but then it was treated similarly to any submission by any National Department in the budgetary process.

Ms Sejosengwe had already raised the issue of the retention of the function in the DoJ&CD, which then forced the OCJ to directly engage with the DoJ&CD, and escalate its matters relating to infrastructure challenges to the DPWI through that process. There is an Infrastructure Committee that was established by the heads of court, which was led by one of the heads of court. There were engagements with the DPWI at that level. Issues raised with the DPWI were noted, and given to the OCJ as officials, and it then at provincial and national levels, engaged with colleagues in the DPWI and the DoJ&CD to make colleagues aware of the critical infrastructure matters that came from the judiciary on the courts. The OCJ did not have control over the responses to issues that were raised with Departments, nor what the budget would be, because that fell outside of the OCJ’s mandate.

The issues raised on generators, roof leaks and air conditioning at the SCA were on a list being dealt with by colleagues in the province. Those issues had also been escalated to the national level of the DPWI as well. The OCJ was aware of that, and in those engagements, those matters were attended to.

Addressing the issue regarding computer equipment, Ms Sejosengwe told the Committee that Departments did not procure ICT equipment in isolation. There were transversal contracts issued by SITA for each type of equipment, whether it was a desktop or a laptop, with certain specifications. The OCJ needed to use those contracts with those specifications when it procured. The only thing that the OCJ did was assess whether the specifications that were given to the OCJ by the transversal companies and SITA complied with the needs of staff. As the Secretary-General indicated, for instance, the question was whether that type of equipment would enable virtual courts and whether it would be sufficient to implement and maintain the rollout of the requirements of case lines and Online Court. Online Court would of course need a laptop or desktop with higher specifications than a run-of-the-mill laptop that one could buy from any major store. There were also prescripts that the OCJ needed to comply with when it came to that procurement.

Ms Sejosengwe responded to the question about the risk related to cyber security, and why the OCJ still had it in its risk register. It did not necessarily mean that the OCJ had done nothing since the breach in 2020. The OCJ had taken the Committee in confidence, and had submitted a comprehensive report subject to the previous meeting when the issue was raised. The OCJ was not saying that the issue was not managed. It still had to keep an eye on that issue. Even beyond the OCJ, big companies were being attacked, such as banks. These were bigger organisations with more resources than what the OCJ had. It was a risk that the OCJ could not de-escalate and remove.

The issue of generators was a National problem with the courts, and she did not think it was only courts, since all of the state buildings were having the same issue. But that fell squarely within the DPWI. The OCJ engaged with the DPWI, but the National Keypoint Declaration was legislation that was administered by the SAPS. To the extent to which SAPS would agree to have a national keypoint declared on the SCA, one would still have to see whether it would happen, because of other aspects that the OCJ had raised. There were many engagements that happened in the past, where even the Constitutional Court and others were identified as not being National key points. The Declaration was a SAPS competency which did not fall within the OCJ, and it had been raised before, even at a higher level in a meeting between the Chief Justice and the Chief of Police in the past.

Mr Coetzer responded to a question on the previous reports of non-responsiveness for the infrastructure upgrades. Those procurement processes were concluded in the previous financial year. The OCJ was awaiting delivery from the appointed service provider. The reason why there was a slight delay in the delivery was because of the worldwide backlog in manufacturing, and specifically in relation to the microchip shortage that was an essential piece of equipment that came with every type of ICT infrastructure that one procured nowadays. Procurement had been concluded and once the equipment started arriving, the OCJ would begin the process of implementing the new infrastructure.

The procurement processes for the CRT had not yet been concluded. The OCJ was a partner in the procurement process in terms of being a participant in the services. The procurement process lay within the DoJ&CD. The OCJ did have one opportunity to make an input on the procurement process, and that was to ensure that the list of all the courts was captured within that procurement process. In the meantime, the OCJ had done the following: The SG had allowed the OCJ to enter into a short-term contract through a procurement process internally within the OCJ, where it had requested submissions from various service providers to do maintenance and repairs of the CRT machines for a period of six months. This was done in anticipation that the CRT contract would be concluded by the DoJ&CD. That short-term contract was now exclusively for interim repairs and maintenance of CRT machines in the superior courts to ensure the continuation of services. The Court Administration Unit did the following: When the contract previously came to an end last year, it realised that there might be a problem and a shortage. The OCJ then also procured a few mobile CRT machines, which were then couriered to wherever there was a major problem, to ensure that where there was a court that did not have an operational machine, there was a backup. The OCJ did not have enough of those resources. Hopefully, once the contract was concluded, then the OCJ would revert to the contract with DoJ&CD, where the OCJ would have to make use of the Department’s service provider for future repairs and maintenance, as well as procurement.

The issue of telephones in the SCA was linked to the issue with SITA lines. Because the court was using unified systems, the moment the SITA lines went down, telecommunication lines were also being affected. The unified communication system which ran the PABX of the court was on the Vodacom network. The moment SITA went down, everything moved over to Vodacom, and the Vodacom network got overloaded. That had an impact on the telephone system for that short period. It would be an intermittent issue until SITA had recovered the lines and the court could revert back to Vodacom for telephones and internet, and then the SITA lines then took up the other responsibilities of transversal systems such as the Basic Accounting System (BAS) and Persal (the government employees’ salary system). It was an overloading issue. It was not an issue that was persistent or something that needed replacement of any systems.

Ms Sejosengwe confirmed that she was a member of the IJS Board of Directors, and that she was the OCJ’s representative at the IJS. She further confirmed that the Online Court project was funded through the IJS

Mr Nathi Mncube, Chief Director: Court Administration and Spokesperson for the Judiciary, OCJ, responded to questions. He told the Committee that there was the Implementation Committee that supported the IJS Board and the OCJ’s representative in that particular committee.

With specific reference to the Online Court project, there was also a Steering Committee chaired by the OCJ. There were representatives from different stakeholders, one being the IJS as people who were funding the project. The IJS had been attending monthly meetings since the inception of the project. SITA was also represented in that particular committee, and it attended meetings frequently. All the challenges that the OCJ had in the Online Court project with delays, all at the OCJ were affected, as well as all members of the Steering Committee. At that point in time, a lot of progress had been made, and the OJC should be thanking the IJS for always ensuring that the funds were always available. The IJS had also indicated that the OCJ had been able to spend all funds that had been allocated to the project on time; nothing was ever returned.

When the OCJ was implementing the Online Court project, one of the requirements was to ensure that necessary infrastructure was in place. That also included the equipment that was being bought. When the OCJ decided on purchasing the laptops, part of the requirement was to ensure that laptops that were being purchased going forward would be able to support the Online Court project. With all the courts, especially the SCA and the Constitutional Court, the OCJ made sure that the infrastructure was ready for the Online Court project, and that the equipment that the Judges were using would also be aligned to that. For example, if it was a desktop for the registrars, it should be an all-in-one desktop. The purchasing of equipment was based on the requirements as per advice from SITA and the implementing service provider. On which courts would be next Mr Ncube said that the role that the OCJ played was one of advising the committee that handled those issues, which was chaired by one of the Heads of Court. The OCJ had indicated that the court that should be next after Gauteng should be a court that would have all the infrastructure ready; specifically equipment, and people who were trained in the necessary skills. The SCA would have to be considered first. All other courts, in the OCJ’s view, were just as important. However, the OCJ did not make that decision; it only presented the state of readiness to the Steering Committee, who in turn got direction from the Heads of Court meeting, which would indicate which court should be next. The OCJ had tried to ensure that all the courts were ready. If required, those details could be made available. The Steering Committee had also dealt with issues that the SG touched on, namely what happened when the Online Court system was implemented in all courts, and if certain posts would be redundant. Where it had implemented the Online Court system (such as in Gauteng, with effect from 29 March 2022), officials who had been trained were being used as people who would assist litigants who would deal with walk-ins at the court. Such people were being directed to use a designated kiosk. There were already call centres in Johannesburg and Pretoria, and the people who were handling that were people who the Steering Committee had identified as the most experienced, and who understood the court processes. There was HR staff in the committees to ensure that issues of change in management and organisational matters were being dealt with properly.

There was a question on the integrity of court orders and what was in place to prevent fraudulent court orders: There was a committee that was chaired by a Judge President. The OCJ had been working with the judge to identify the measures that could be put in place to ensure that that phenomenon was prevented. There were two scenarios of fraudulent court orders: The first scenario was one where the actual order itself was manufactured outside of the court environment. This was where a person in the street would create something that looked like a court order. When members of the public encounter such a thing and wanted to verify whether it was a genuine court order, people must approach the registrar. The OCJ did not tell the public what it should look for, but the Chief Registrar would then be able to identify certain features that the OCJ had put in place to make sure that an order was genuine. If one went back prior to that implementation, one would see that all the divisions of the High Court had different templates for their court orders. What happened now was that if one went to any High Court, one would see that all court orders were the same. On the face of it, the court orders looked the same. There were certain features put in place that only the OCJ knew how to identify. Internally as well, the OCJ had also put measures in place to ensure that there was a process. What it found was that sometimes people would approach OCJ officials, and what would have been a genuine court order had its contents interfered with. The OCJ had put a system in place to ensure that when the judge made an order, from there on there was a way of dealing with the information until such time as the judge signs the order. In Gauteng, where the OCJ had started with the Online Court system, it would help the OCJ a great deal in dealing with fraudulent court orders.

On how often the SCA met with the DPWI, at court level, the Directors meet with the DPWI, not just at national level. At court level, the last meeting that took place between the officials, the Director of the SCA and the DPWI was on 22 March 2022. Those meetings happened quite frequently. All those issues that were being raised, either by judges or by the OCJ, were also raised with the DPWI. There were records to show that those meetings did take place.

Ms Sejosengwe said that the Judge Presidents also presided over the Provincial Executive Councils (PECs), which also included the DPWI in meetings about the challenges that impacted court performance at court level.

There was a question put forward, asking the OCJ to unpack what it meant when it said that it did not have adequate skill sets to operate in the new normal. On one hand, the budget cuts being imposed across all the Departments had an impact on the OCJ’s capability to be able to source the tools of trade. That did not only refer to the computers, laptops, etc. It also included systems that were related to certain technical areas wherein one needed to buy the software to do certain things. Currently, leave processes were being automated in other areas of Government. Payslips were being automated and there were many other areas that were being automated. There were other tools that technical areas needed to be able to do their work, such as doing work using the systems instead of doing it manually. Those were tools of trade that would assist Departments to perform optimally. The other side of that was the automation of the court process level especially, not that it did not apply to the administrative sides of things. The Online Court system had one aspect that would require ICT skills. There was the issue of Covid-19 and going virtual. More generally, there was the phenomenon of operating in the time of the internet. Many processes were being automated. The OCJ could not be oblivious to the fact that the world was moving to the internet of things. Historically, South Africa’s workforce was not geared for that. It was something that the OCJ needed to lift out as a risk to say that whilst it was doing its best to do all of those things, budget cuts were impacting on it, and making it more and more difficult for it to have the resources to be able to be relevant in the world of technology that stood today.

Mr Malao said that there was a question from Ms Newhoudt-Druchen on the purpose of the consultation with the DWYPD and the outcome thereof. In relation to the Revised Framework for Strategic Planning and Annual Performance, it required that when developing plans, Departments should consult with the DWYPD, which was a leading Department on priorities relating to women, youth and people with disabilities. The main purpose of that consultation was to ensure that priorities relating to women, youth and people with disabilities were taken into consideration and formed part of the Departmental plans. The outcome of that consultation led to the inclusion of the three outputs that he had already alluded to. The first one was on youth empowerment, the second one was on the representation of women at SMS level, and the third was the representation of people with disabilities. Those outputs had been covered in the OCJ’s APP, and that came as the result of the Revised Framework as well as its consultation with the DWYPD.

The Chairperson asked if the OCJ’s risk register was functional. Was the OCJ having that well-put-together risk register because it was a work of consultancy to impress the Committee? He was asking if it was functional. To answer that, the OCJ had to identify what the risk was, what the outcome was, and how it was going to mitigate it. The Chairperson hoped that the OCJ could answer that to the best of its ability because the Committee was going to monitor that risk register. It was going to check it when the OCJ came to the Committee about whether that register was functional.

The Committee visited the Mthatha High Court. One of the few things it was impressed with was the judicial library in support of the Judges. The Chairperson referred to Mthatha so that his questions covered all of the other courts there. He had not seen in the OCJ’s indicators how it supported those judicial libraries. How capacitated were the libraries? In Mthatha, there was a good librarian, who had no assistant librarian. When the librarian was ill, and away for two days, the Judges were stuck and could not get assisted. There was no assistant librarian or principal librarian. That was an important service. He asked the OCJ to link that issue with its Judicial Education and Support programme. One of the things that were raised was the lack of continuous training of those librarians. There were no workshops that the librarians went to in order to refresh their skills and capacitate themselves more.

There was no budget for heritage books. For example with the law reform books, the Committee could see that in the Mthatha library, there was a lot of material there which was important for the work of the Judges, but they did not seem to get proper assistance. Those heritage books could not be covered. The books had to remain as they were as part of the jurisprudence (but were not covered). Could the OCJ point out how that support from its APP was done, so that the Committee could follow that?

On the disposal of old items, those items were not able to have a new space, because there was no service that emptied spaces of what was no longer needed.

Ms Sejosengwe said that the OCJ did have a Risk Unit at senior management level, which was responsible for assessing risk. The risk featured at three levels of the OCJ’s governance. It dealt with that at an operational level, at an Executive Committee (EXCO) level, and it dealt with it under the oversight of the Audit and Risk Committee. The Audit and Risk Committee was very rigorous with the OCJ when it came to risk for the institution. That was where the OCJ was taken to task, and it could assure the Committee that the OCJ did not have consultants assessing risk, like every other aspect of its work, the OCJ did that internally. It did not cut and paste from Google and say that that was its risk. It really engaged with the risks. Every unit sat with the Risk Manager and went through a proper workshop engagement on the risks that were emanating from each area. In the courts, the OCJ had risk champions, who the National-level Risk Manager works to make sure that risk was internalised and institutionalised as part of the OCJ’s business. The OCJ’s Risk Manager resigned, but the post would be filled soon. The post had already been advertised. As soon as the Risk Manager left at the end of January, the OCJ advertised the post. Nothing was falling through the cracks, and the work was being done. She could assure the Committee that, for instance, the OCJ had 100% Equal Employment (EE) disclosure of the SMS at the end of April, as an example of the OCJ’s risk function being operational.

On the library, and it not being seen in the OCJ’s indicators Ms Sejosengwe said some of the issues would be delegated to the Chief Director of Court Administration for response. Her colleagues would deal with the aspects of the librarians and the support for them, and why they did not appear in the APP. The OCJ also had an operational plan which dealt with some of the aspects that might not necessarily appear on the APP, as well as other areas that the Directors of Court Operations would be held accountable for. Mr Mncube would also deal with the issue of the disposal of old court documents. That was a problematic issue for all of the courts, because the National Archives were full, and putting documents online cost a lot of money which the OCJ did not have. There were also budget cuts which put the OCJ between a rock and a hard place. But the OCJ did make sure that it found ways within its meagre budget to manage that. She conceded that that was a problem when it came to court documents, because of the bulk of court documents that it had. The OCJ thought that beyond the Online Court system, that problem could begin to recede, although the historical legacy of the documents would still have to be attended to.

Mr Mncube responded to the question on the library issue saying the SG had indicated that the OCJ had a Key Performance Indicator (KPI) on library support in its operational plan. The OCJ had committees set up for librarians, which were chaired by one of the OCJ’s Directors. Whatever information on support that librarians needed, the OCJ could get it from the Director responsible at national level. Additionally, that forum was created so that there could be sharing of information with particular reference to assist librarians to access the Constitutional Court library, which was one of the biggest. The librarians had direct support, and support from the committee and its chairperson. Purchasing books was still an issue that was with the DoJ&CD. The OCJ was able to buy some books, but in the main, the DoJ&CD was responsible for that. The Department had contracts in place to do that. In view of where the OCJ was with technology, a decision was then taken to say that instead of buying all the books that needed physical updating, most of that was done online, and that resource was always available, including in Mthatha. The OCJ was struggling with the issue of capacity in almost all Departments. There was a good librarian in Mthatha. It might be that that librarian believed that he needed an assistant, however, at that point in time, the OCJ would be prioritising the librarian, and it would then make arrangements to have somebody who would then be an assistant as and when required. Unfortunately, it happened in most of the positions with the OCJ. For example, it could only have one Court Manager. If the Court Manager was not there, the OCJ had to find somebody who must act or assist. It also had one Chief Registrar. If that person was not there, the OCJ had to find somebody who could assist. That went with every other position, including that of a librarian. Librarians always had support that was available to them as and when it was required.

When it came to the disposal of assets in general, whether it was books or some of the old court files, the OCJ was dealing with two issues. The first was that it did have Disposal Committees as it was required at every Provincial level. That committee would then sit and identify what needed to be disposed of, follow the prescribed process, and report to the National office. When there were issues of old books that had been identified and needed to be disposed of, then they got disposed of. He was present (at least before Covid-19 hit) in the Eastern Cape when staff were dealing with that particular issue. That issue was dealt with according to what was expected, at least in his view. Secondly, the issue of space was a result of the court files where the OCJ was running out of space. That was because the superior court files could not be destroyed. The Online Court system would help to deal with the legacy problem. As a result, the OCJ had made a submission (which had not been approved at that point) to assist it with digitisation of old records. Once the old records (which ran into many pages) had been digitised, the OCJ would then be able to make space for other records. It was a concern that all shared, at all levels. Particularly with the big divisions, it was a serious problem. But it was a problem that the OCJ was trying to find solutions for. The main solution was to have those records digitised, so that if it was necessary to dispose of old records, then it would be able to do so. It could not dispose of records that had not been digitised.

At the OCJ, for each position (e.g. the librarians), it created a forum where all the librarians were able to meet quarterly, and they also interacted throughout the year. There was information-sharing happening, and the Director who chaired the forum ensured that there was also exposure, where librarians were able to access the Constitutional Court library. There, librarians could access materials, and were also able to receive some kind of assistance. Librarians had workshops quarterly, where both issues and information were shared.

The Chairperson said that the Deputy Judge President of the Court also addressed something that he also did not see in the APP. Specifically that of producing judgements, and then the OCJ would end up going to buy them back from Juta and Van Wyk. There was supposed to be a project wherein creators of judgements were able to produce those. It could be what one called a self-sustainability project. (He said that the DG did not have to answer that question in the meeting.)

Ms Sejosengwe noted that the judges had said the same thing in their forum as heads of court. There were more dynamics involved than the OJC having the capacity to take the judgements of every court that were reportable and translate it into what was a reportable case for public use, academic consumption, etc. There were a lot of dynamics involved. The entire judgeship was very unhappy about that issue. It cost a lot of money to buy from Juta etc., and those contracts were run through the DoJ&CD. Internally, the OCJ had looked at that matter. Additionally, it was a project of the judiciary, so perhaps the OCJ could share it at a later stage.

The Chairperson said that Mr Mncube could give highlights on the project, but it was going to be a project that the Committee would be interested in.

Mr Mncube said that in the APP, there was the output of “Monitoring reports on law reporting project” under Superior Court Services (Programme Two). It was something that the former Chief Justice was very particular about. The heads of court wanted that particular issue to be addressed. It was a very long exercise. The OCJ’s task was to engage with different jurisdictions to see if there were things it could learn from those jurisdictions. For a start, the OCJ wanted to have a portal where all judgements would be deposited, which would serve as a repository, so that judges would be able to access judgements irrespective of where the judgement was made. From there, the OCJ could embark on making sure that it got to a point where judges produced their own law reports. It would require a lot of money, and a lot of systems to be put in place, and it would be a phased-in approach. The OCJ was working on that project, and that particular KPI was in the APP.

The Chairperson responded that the Committee would travel that journey with the OCJ. The matter of the judicial repository had been raised, and so if it was a project that the OCJ was doing at its own leisure, then the Committee wanted that project to become real, given its importance.

Ms Sejosengwe said that the OCJ had noted the Members’ areas of concern. To the extent that those were under the OCJ’s control, it would ensure that it managed those, and those dependencies would be managed going forward.

The meeting was adjourned.