Department of Justice and Constitutional Development Annual Report 2021/22, with Deputy Minister

Meeting report

The Chairperson said that today the Committee would be receiving a briefing from the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development (DoJ&CD) on its Annual Report for 2021/2022. The Department’s delegation was led by the Deputy Minister and the Director-General.

The Chairperson welcomed the Deputy Minister and all those in attendance.

The Chairperson invited the Deputy Minister to make any opening remarks, followed by the Director-General who would make the presentation.

Deputy Minister John Jeffery said that he was accompanying the Department and the Director-General. It was the Department and the Director-General’s presentation. The Minister had made the political input the previous day. He would be around to assist with questions.

Briefing by the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development on 2021/22 Annual Report

Adv Doctor Mashabane, Director-General, DoJ&CD, said that he was present with the executive committee members and senior members to present the Annual Report for the year under review, 2021/2022. He reflected on a few issues mainly related to the presentations the Department made the previous day. The Department’s first duty was to not continue with the downward spiral. He made a footballing metaphor. The Department was not going to win the championship, but its target was to be in the top eight. That was what the Department would be reflecting on. There was the joint task of fixing the Department and putting it on a pedestal so that it could be a Department that could deliver on its mandate.

The Department had developed a turnaround plan. He discussed the turnaround plan. Significant progress had been made with the re-organisation and redesign of the Department. The Minister for Public Service and Administration had finally concurred with the proposed structure of the Department. For more than eight years the Department did not have an approved functional structure. This was important in order to realign the Department to focus on the strategic priorities that were identified in the strategic plan. What was key and important in that new structure was the focus on building its ICT department, which had been in a crisis situation for the past five years mainly on the basis of contract employment. The Department was now trying to build skills that would help it rebuild its ICT system. The Department had started a process of devolution. It was decentralising responsibilities, functions, personnel and budget to the provinces so that it went to where service delivery was currently taking place. The Head office should be lean, nimble and agile. It should just serve as a nerve centre to coordinate strategies and plans that the Department sought to implement to improve its service delivery. The Department’s strategic outlook was informed by the mid-term strategic framework. The Department had made sure it aligned everything, starting from the most junior officials. It all had to be aligned with what the Department wanted to achieve in the MTSF period of five years. The Department had recently come out of a strategic retreat where it did an appraisal of the first three years, from 2019 to June 2022, to see how far it was going in achieving the targets that had been set. It was mindful of the fact that the current administration was left with 18 months. It needed to see that all the priorities and objectives that had been set were achieved come 31 March 2024. The Department had developed interventions that would be implemented within the next 18 months, starting with the next six months up until the end of the financial year. The Department made the commitment that when it came back next year to present the final instalment of the APP for the current administration, it Department gave the Committee the confidence that it was achieving the priorities of the MTSF.

He discussed human capital development. It was a major area that the Department had identified which was a challenge. The Department had conducted a skills audit for both the senior managers and the general employees of the Department. The Department had started working on interventions, particularly around the area of strategic management capabilities. The Justice College had started conducting master classes and training. The senior managers had made the commitment that they needed to be taken through the training. The reality of the matter was that the majority of the staff, lawyers or people with a legal background, may not have had an opportunity to be exposed to training and capacity insofar as strategic management was concerned.

Another area of attention was at the court management level. The Department had the responsibility to manage more than 740 courts. The Department needed to build capacity. The Department had started making interventions in managing those courts as service delivery points and making sure that there was access to justice. The clerks, who made up the bulk of the staff complement, needed to be properly trained. That was an area of intervention that the Department was working on.

He discussed modernisation. The MTSF priorities and the Minister’s first budget vote were clear in this area. The reality was that the Department had not made strides. Looking at the Department’s performance for the year under review the biggest challenge emanated from the area of the ICT system. The Department had taken the position that it was rebuilding from scratch. The approach that was used over the years of project management mainly managing contracts has not worked. The Department was now building capacity. It was looking for the skills that it could find both in the public sector and the private sector to make sure that the Department had capacity. The Department was not only going to build internal capacity, but it needed to have a balance. 80% needed to be internal capacity. 20% could be capacity that came from outside.

However, the Department remained with a major challenge. The Department had mentioned it previously. The State Information Technology Agency (SITA) Act was a serious problem. This Department was not the first to say this. The Department was not afraid to put it on record. It was a major challenge for the Department when it came to processes. It took a long period for processes that procurement must be done through SITA. The Department went through the processes and submitted to SITA, but it took a long time. It was a matter that was raised with the Minister of Communications. The Minister of Justice had signed letters to the Minister of Communications asking for the Department to be exempted from certain areas of the SITA processes. This was done for obvious reasons that some of the systems were not necessarily what SITA was capable of assisting the Department with. The Committee would notice when the Department spoke about the Integrated Justice System, it was challenged by the same situation. Various other Departments had the same challenge. The Department was making efforts to engage with SITA.

He discussed the challenge of the court recording technology. The Department had had a challenge with the contract that had expired. The current contract was valid until February next year. Significant progress had been made. The information that the Department had, as of the end of last week, was that it had a system that was 80% functional. The Department wanted every courthouse to at least have a machine that functioned in order to deal with the general challenges. The Department would come back to report on the oversight matters and would give full details about that system. Information had come to the Department that the system had reached its lifespan. The Department had to consider what it did for the way forward. There might be new systems in the market that might be more agile, and more modernised that could assist the Department. With the current system, no matter how the Department could try to maintain it, it would continue to have challenges. The situation was not assisted by loadshedding. When there was loadshedding and the system came back there was a certain number of machines that get affected for a period of time and then the Department would have to attend to those.

2021/22 Annual Report Presentation

Mr Terence Raseroka, Head of Strategy, DoJ&CD, led a delegation from the Department that briefed the Committee on the Department’s Annual Performance Report for 2021/2022. The presentation detailed the overall Departmental performance, performance per programme, performance highlights, progress on the key legislation, challenges, audit outcomes and financial information. The departmental performance had begun to gain momentum, with an improvement since the 2020/2021 financial year. The performance increased by 29% in 2020/2021 and 19% in 2021/2022. The target for the Department was to achieve at least 80% of the annual targets, this was missed by 1%. The presentation detailed the overall performance of five programmes. The administration achieved 77% of its annual targets. Court Services achieved 87% of its annual targets. State Legal Services achieved 79% of its annual targets. National Prosecuting Authority achieved 71% of its annual targets. Auxiliary and associated services achieved 100% of its annual targets. Key challenges facing the Department included negative audit outcomes, ageing ICT infrastructure and a high vacancy rate.

(See Presentation)

Discussion

Mr W Horn (DA) thanked the Department for the effort in preparing the presentation. From the outset, he wanted to extract some positives, but it was difficult. The Committee wanted to place reliance on the promise of the Director-General that by this time next year it would see that the corner has been turned. He noted that one of the positives that might indicate that was potentially possible was the finding by the Auditor-General that there was an improved assurance level afforded by the accounting officer and the executive authority. Even though the targets had not been met it was also good to see the vacancy rate at the senior management level had improved. That was more or less where the good story ended in his assessment. The repeat findings were a big worry. The Committee heard the explanation but once again from where it was sitting, the issue of contingent liabilities was not a new one last year. It remained a big source of discomfort for the Committee that had still not yet been solved. Despite some appointments in the financial division on a senior level, the repeat finding about supply chain management irregularities was a big concern. Added to that was the finding of a lack of consequence management. That was simply not acceptable. He discussed the irregular, fruitless and wasteful expenditure. The Committee needed a further explanation. The target was a decrease of 70%, now it was an increase of 43%. Then the Committee was informed it was about an extension of a contract of 2016. The Committee had been advised that it was all about a contract extension without National Treasury approval. If that was the case, then it was a simple compliance matter that had not been attended to. Today the Committee heard, and it was not really part of the Annual Report, that the Department had decided that this was a matter of fraud. What was now the status of that contract? Now that the Department had concluded that there was not only a financial irregularity or a compliance issue in play but criminal conduct, had the contract at least been cancelled? The Committee needed to ask that question.

The Chairperson asked Mr Horn if he was talking about the R863 million security contract.

Mr Horn responded that he was.

Mr Horn discussed a number of operational targets. He noted the absolute failure to make any headway really made a mockery of the expressed commitment of Parliament and the Government to the fight against gender-based violence. The Committee could not find comfort in the fact that there was a GBV summit and that there was a GBV dashboard if it was taken into consideration that over the last two financial years, first the target of 27 sexual offences courts designated was not achieved last year and then the Committee was informed that it was a technical issue that had hampered it to happen in time, a memo that had to be signed. In this year the Committee was told that out of the new target of 100, zero had been achieved. Saying those figures should upset all of the Members because this was the tangible way in which the criminal justice system must be able to give effect to those legislations which Parliament was put under tremendous pressure to get through and which the President finally signed.

It was fine to inform the Committee about progress with legislation but there was also an undertaking from the Department regarding that trifecta of Bills. The Department was already developing the regulations while developing the Bills. Yet those regulations were nowhere to be seen. The Committee needed to ask for an answer on that issue as well. Last year there was a target that there was also a zero performance on 18 audio-visual remand systems being put in place. He did not see in the Annual Report this year any target related to it. However, when the Committee met with Legal Aid SA it informed the Committee that they found it very frustrating and a factor that impacted on their ability to perform their duties and functions. The fact that audio-visual remand systems were not functional and were not rolled out. The target had seemingly disappeared, but the Committee needed to ask, what was going on there?

He discussed infrastructure. Infrastructure included court buildings. There was zero performance in respect of planned maintenance. The lasting impression the Committee formed when it undertook the oversight visits was that it was good to strengthen those relationships with the Auditor-General but there were serious deficiencies in relationships with Public Works. There was a serious gap in dealing proactively with the maintenance of court buildings. The report unfortunately did not say enough.

He discussed the court recording technology. The Committee’s feedback was also that there should be at least one functional device in every court building. There could be a long debate about whether that was really good enough. The Committee had heard stories from magistrates about how they scheduled to work in shifts when there was a trial that they had on their calendar in order for everyone to make use of that one device. Firstly, that was not good enough. Secondly, on the feedback of the Director-General today it was well known that the extension of the contract or new award to the same service provider was running out in February. What systems were in place if this was now a defunct system? It could not be upgraded anymore. It could not be that from 1 March again that the Department was sitting with courts that could not function.

He discussed the SIU. The Department said 99% of the invoices were paid within 30 days, yet the AG reported that this Department was one of the top ten contributors to the issues the SIU had with State entities and Departments. There was about R300 million that it was not able to collect. Furthermore, the AG said it was one of the four entities and they could not give any room to say that they were also struggling financially and therefore that was the reason the Department was not paying. The Department was put in the green bracket by the AG when it spoke about that debt to the SIU. Given the fact that the Director-General concluded his remarks by saying that the Department struggled to get other Departments to pay it, why was this Department not paying the SIU?

The Chairperson said that in addition to Mr Horn’s question this Committee wrote to the Department, in fact to the Minister, on the same issue that there was a complaint that the SIU had not been paid. He really thought that this should be one of the first responses of the Director-General. The Committee followed up with the Minister and the Department to make sure that the SIU was paid. It was really bad that an entity within the Department’s portfolio would have such complaints against it. The Committee was really looking forward to the Department’s response to that.

Adv S Swart (ACDP) thanked the Department for the comprehensive reporting. He commended the Department on the improvement in overall performance in certain areas. It was pointed out by the Minister the previous day that the performance had improved to 79% from 66% in 2021. Cleary that needed to be contextualised. The three Specialised Commercial Crime Courts were commendable. He was very interested in the figure relating to the IJS, the 1 989 246 cases. The Committee could engage with the NPA. When did it start with that number of cases and where did it end up with convictions? It would help the Committee to know the percentage of convictions. He noted the 443 cashless solutions. There was some progress. However, as other colleagues had pointed out, when the Members were on the ground they were frequently requested to assist with many different delays when it came to the Master’s Office when it came to maintenance, and court processes.

He commented on the overall performance. In May this year, the Committee expressed its disappointment or disapproval about the exclusion of certain indicators and the reduction of targets. That was in May after the financial year. To what degree was the improvement the 79% attributable to that reduction of targets and indicators? It was a bit of a mixed bag. There had been improvements in some regards. However, when measured against that reduction, next year there might be a change because there was a letter and the Minister indicated that the Department would review that reduction in those targets. One had to consider that.

The Director-General explained some of the Department’s work with the AG and some of the issues there. As the oversight Committee, it had to take very seriously particularly the repeat findings that the AG had made. The Committee would like to hear further from the Director-General with regard to those repeat findings and the accuracy of the evidence that was given to the AG. When the AG raised the material findings relating to the usefulness and reliability of reported performance information, that particularly related to the State Legal Services programme. That of course related to the contingent liability issue, which he had raised the previous day with the Minister. He understood that a report was being considered at a specific time this year and that improvements had been done since then. When he asked the Minister about the contingent liability, he indicated that it was R146 billion and that the programme of managing the contingent liability had now been accepted. In the new financial year, the Committee would get a better understanding of that. Was that a confirmed figure?

He discussed the State Attorney’s Office. He was concerned about the Solicitor-General. The fact that that position had not yet been finalised. It was still a temporary appointment. That needed to be finalised. There were five State Attorney Offices where the heads were not appointed yet. The Committee wanted to see progress in that regard. He noted the investigations into the State Attorney’s Office. He did not know if the Department would be able to comment on that.

He shared the concerns of the Director-General on the fact of client Departments not paying for services rendered by the State Attorney when it came to the briefing of counsel, particularly the costs. The State Attorney and the Department ran a significant overdraft facility to pay those expenses. When it was not repaid then there was interest and other issues related to public finances. The Committee needed to support the Director-General in taking a harder stance on client Departments that were not paying. He was quite disturbed that some payments had to be written off. In private practice when someone took on a case there needed to be a deposit. He did not know if one could reach that stage because there were many urgent applications. The Committee needed to assist the Department in that regard.

He wanted to get feedback on the improvement in the Master’s Office. The Committee knew that the Master’s Office played a significant role in the economy. One of the issues related to the 29 803 letters of executorship and authority that were outstanding as of the end of the financial year. Could the Committee get an indication, it was anticipated that it would be cleared by the end of December, what was the progress in that regard? That was a significant number of outstanding issues there. He noted that there were Master’s Courts that were in a deplorable state. What was the Department doing with Public Works to try and improve that issue?

He wanted feedback on some of the issues raised at the Supreme Court of Appeal relating to Public Works. The issues of the air-conditioning, lifts, and roofs. Was there progress in addressing those issues? Loadshedding occurring at the SCA was a major issue. This occurred at the SCA but not at the High Court. This impacted the workings of the SCA which was unacceptable.

The Chairperson asked Adv Swart if his last question would be much more relevant if it was asked to the Office of the Chief Justice, especially with regard to the SCA and the High Court.

Adv Swart agreed with the Chairperson. He withdrew that question. He noted that the Members were always appreciative of the State Law Advisors that helped Parliament with Bills. The Members put a lot of pressure on them. He needed confirmation from the Director-General whether it was correct that there was underspending of R84 million on legislative development and law reform programme. Those lawyers that helped Members with drafting were excellent but clearly, they were severely under-capacitated and needed additional staff. It would be a concern if there was an underspending there. He asked for that to be confirmed. What steps were being taken to improve the capacity given the crucial role that they played in assisting Members? A Bill had been passed in one month, relating to drugs and drug trafficking. That was commendable by the Department and the Committee, in doing it in one month. Clearly, that was an aspect that needed addressing. He appreciated the work of so many officials at various levels. He emphasised that when the Members were on the ground, they often got a different picture and that was the challenge.

Ms Y Yako (EFF) echoed the words of the previous speakers. She was not sure if it was something that was done historically that Members would just accept what the Department presented. The Members had the opportunity to go directly to the buildings, directly to the Master’s Offices, and directly to the courts. The Members had seen for themselves what actually was happening. What was presented did not reflect what was actually happening on the ground because, first of all, the Department did not have an ICT system. What good was the ICT system if there was no backup generator that the Department invested in for its buildings? What good was an ICT system if most of the Department’s work was done manually? When that work was done manually the Department did not have a proper filing system for any of the things that it did. It was very frustrating for the Department’s workforce as well because the bulk of their hours was spent finding those files instead of assisting and doing the jobs that they were supposed to be doing. She had an issue with that, and it had been going on for long. It did not seem like there was a proper solution with regard to the ICT system around the Department of Justice. That worried her because if South Africa lacked in terms of that then the country was going to find itself in trouble. By the time South Africa adapted to world standards, it would cost the country a lot of money that it did not have. There was no will from the Department to find itself and do the work that it was supposed to do to mitigate that gap. She had an issue with the buildings in the Department not being owned by the Department but leased from Public Works. The Committee had gone to the Master’s Office in Mthatha and it was deplorable. The Department was renting a church building for R100 000 that was in shambles. It was a shack. Yet there were supposed to be files there in a shack. Anyone could burn the place down and then the Department would not be able to find any of the documents that people needed for the legacies of their families. It just seemed like the Department was just paying lip service and passing the buck and giving the Committee what it thought the Committee wanted to hear. She also had an issue with the constant irregular expenditure that was being reported as if it were nothing. It was a lot. There had to be processes in place for the Department to be able to write off something as irregular expenditure. At the municipal level, there was a process. She would imagine that at the Departmental level there was a bigger process in how it did procurement processes. The Department could not just write something off for it to amount to millions. It was unacceptable for the Committee to accept that this Department was constantly having irregular expenditure in the millions. It was just let go. It was not followed up and there was no consequence management that if you deviated from processes then this was what would happen. The Committee needed to be really looking into it. Clearly, it had been let go by the management of the Department itself. The management did not seem to be very concerned about it. It did not seem to be concerned about the dignity of the Department itself. She was very worried about it. The Department needed to look closely into the quality. When one walked into the Master’s Office one should feel that you were in a Master’s Office. When one walked into a Magistrate’s Office one should feel like you were in a court. There should be pride attached to it and she did not feel like there was a lot of pride attached to it. By coming to Parliament and giving the Committee what it thought it wanted to hear, it did not translate because the Committee had been there. It left a sour taste in the Members’ mouths.

Dr W Newhoudt-Druchen (ANC) congratulated the Department on the slight improvement in its performance. She discussed the Sexual Offences Courts. She expressed her disappointment that out of the target of 100 Sexual Offences Courts that were supposed to be set up, none were set up. The Committee had worked very hard on those three GBV Bills. The Committee had made sure that the Bills made it to the President in time for assent. The target was not even achieved and there was a backlog of GBV cases. It was a huge disappointment not only to the Committee but to the women and children who were waiting for justice to be delivered. There were all these slogans about the war on women. It was not nice for this Committee to see these kinds of results from the Department. She asked the Department to clarify why that target was completely missed. Out of the R900 million, only R35 million was resolved so the balance of that was being written off as fraud. Why was it so easy to write something off as fraud? What was being done about the balance? Why could it not be paid back? There was no information about that. The Committee knew it would take the Department long to find out why it was fraud. What was the Department doing currently and what would the Department do to prevent such cases from repeating? There should be some kind of investigation even before the monies were paid out. She discussed the contract related to the court recording machines. It was due to expire in February. There was the problem of the contract not being in place before. What was the Department going to do seeing as it was four months away from February to avoid the problem that happened earlier this year? She noted that on the slide relating to HR the Department had a staff establishment of 23 773. The number of people with disabilities was 357. She was not satisfied with that number. She felt that the Department needed to do more to appoint people with disabilities. It was really not satisfactory. In relation to the staff establishment, how many were youth? Of the entire staff compliment, how many of them were in the youth category? In relation to the question of the writing off of those numbers, what was the root cause of this irregular expenditure? How would the Department prevent that? She discussed the Department’s relationship with the Department of Public Works and Infrastructure. Members had repeatedly shared what they saw during their oversight visits. It was like a broken record with all the problems with infrastructure. What was the Department’s relationship with the Department of Public Works? Was there any sign of improvement in these infrastructure challenges?  

The Chairperson told the Members that in the programme towards the end of next month the Committee would be having a meeting with both the Department and the Department of Public Works on the infrastructure issues. The Committee would also be ventilating some of these issues before it adjourned for the term. The Committee would attend to some of them.

Ms N Maseko-Jele (ANC) said that the Chairperson had already indicated that the Committee would discuss some of the issues when the Department came for the meeting that would be scheduled in the future. She wanted the Department to give the Committee some information on how it was going to deal with the issue of the repeat findings by the AG. Particularly on the non-compliance with SCM regulations. That issue had been coming many times. She did not know exactly what was the problem that the Department might be experiencing. Maybe it was something that the Department could tell the Committee about in detail. She discussed the Sexual Offences Courts. The zero-percentage achievement was unacceptable. It did not give a good picture, particularly on the issues that were raised earlier by her colleagues. She discussed the finding of the AG. It also noted that senior management did not ensure the effective monitoring of the action plan. She wanted the Director-General to comment on that issue. It was really worrisome if the AG found something like this.  

Mr Horn said that Adv Breytenbach had sent him a message that despite her having joined on two devices she was struggling with connectivity issues. She had sent Mr Horn her questions and asked that he read them. Adv Breytenbach wanted to discuss the maintenance of court infrastructure, the buildings. Apart from the Committee having that meeting with DPWI and the Department, through its oversight it saw that there was a massive gap that needed to be addressed.  There was also a fear that the Department was not properly in the know of the status of all its court buildings. What plans were there to speedily make that assessment as to the state of court buildings so that urgent intervention can be made? The second question was specifically related to Potchefstroom. Her feedback was that they had started work on the building where courts had to be evacuated and became dysfunctional on the basis of a roof collapse. The feedback she received was that the work that had commenced was on a section of the building where the court buildings were not situated. The feeling was that if one wanted to restore the functionality of courts that that does not make sense. He did not know whether there could be given an explanation. She also raised the issue of the Pretoria Magistrate’s Court which was affected by a fire in 2019. The project commenced soon thereafter. It stood at 30% completion. The relationship ended with the previous contractor on 27 September 2019. That was just more than three years ago and despite that, there was still not a new contractor on site. Was there an explanation for that state of paralysis for three years? This was in one of the busiest Magistrates’ Courts in the country.

Ms Maseko-Jele noted the Director-General’s remarks about SITA.  It reminded her about what the Committee heard from the Information Regulator the previous day. The Regulator also raised the issue of the Department not responding to it. That resulted in the Regulator not performing as it wished. The Committee needed to get a comment from the Director-General on that matter. Why was the Department doing to the Regulator what SITA was doing to the Department?

The Chairperson said that the Committee had written a letter to the Department. It concerned the Department and the Information Regulator. The complaint on the side of the Information Regulator is that the Department was not cooperating. The Committee wrote the Department a letter, early this year or last year. There was a dispute of facts because the Department, in its response through the Minister, said that it was cooperating. It was something that the Committee needed to follow up. The Chairperson gave the Department time to process the questions and allocate the questions properly amongst themselves. 

Deputy Minister Jeffery responded to the issue both Mr Horn and Dr Newhoudt-Druchen raised about the non-designation of the Sexual Offences Courts and what the problem was. He provided a brief background. There were some Sexual Offences Courts at a Regional Court level where most of the sexual offences cases were tried. In the 2000s, Minister Radebe set up a ministerial committee to give advice as to whether these should continue because in many areas there was not much happiness from the presiding officers who found the sexual offences cases exhausting. That was the ministerial advisory team on sexual offences. They recommend that they continue. They set out criteria. After that, the Department then set up Sexual Offences Courts in the different court-houses and put that on the website. Parliament had felt though that these Sexual Offences Courts should be designated by the Minister. In 2013, Parliament, in a Judicial Matters Amendment Bill, included section 55(a) to the Sexual Offences Act. That was that the Minister may by notice designate any division of the High Court or the main seat or any local seat of a division or Magistrate’s Court as defined in section 1 of the Superior Courts Act, as a Sexual Offences Court. There were also provisions for the Minister to make regulations 67(b). The Minister may make regulations necessary to give effect to the designation of the courts referred to in section 55(a)(1) including the requirements for the efficient and effective functioning thereof. That was what was passed by Parliament. The regulations referred to take some time because there was extensive consultation with civil society. They set out the minimum standards that you could expect when you went to a Sexual Offences Court in terms of infrastructure, in terms of services offered and in terms of officials present. Those regulations were gazetted on 7 February 2020. Section 55(a) came into effect on 31 January 2020. In terms of section 55(a) there had to be a consultation with the Chief Justice. That took some time. There was some debate as to whether it should be courtrooms or courthouses. It was designated originally that courtrooms were put on the website. The overall consensus from the Department side is that it should be the place of sitting that is designated. So, it would be the Pretoria Regional Court for example, in the Pretoria Magistrate’s Court. The problems were technical. Basically, the Department had been extending the Sexual Offences Courts that had the infrastructure. That was still continuing, and those courts were trying cases. The problem was a legal issue with the designation. The original intention was that the Minister would designate places of sitting. The legal advice from the Department was that, no it could not be done. If one looked at the definition of a Regional Court then it was the Regional Court for the province. There was a memorandum wanting the Minister to designate the nine Regional Courts as Sexual Offences Courts. In other words, there would be nine. The problem is that that was not what was envisaged in section 55(a), which was specific courts, or at least places of sitting. The legal advice was that that could not be done. The issue was being looked at. It was a question of should the definition of Regional Court, which was referred to in section 55(a) which was a reference to the Magistrates Court Act, be changed to ensure that places of sitting could be designated. The regulations were what you could expect when you get into a Sexual Offences Court. The fear would be that if you go to a particular Regional Court in a province and it did not have the facilities then you would legitimately be able to say that this was what the regulations said. The issue of non-designation was a legal issue. That was not stopping the work from being done. Although it designated zero, the nine Regional Courts could be designated. He was not sure how that was going to help matters. The work in terms of ensuring that courthouses, places of sitting, had courtrooms that were equipped was continuing. The officials would be able to provide more detail of the numbers of how many it actually was. It was the formal legal designation that was running into a problem with a definition of a Regional Court.

Adv Praise Kambula, Chief Director: Promotion of the Rights of Vulnerable Groups, DoJ&CD, said that there was a memo before the Minister. It was a memo aligned with the wording of section 55(a). It empowered the Minister to designate courts where the Sexual Offences Courts must be established. Section 55(a) did not really require the Sexual Offences Courts to be designated but the places where they were established needed to be designated. This was a highly debatable issue, and the Department was handling it. There was not a single court that was not dealing with sexual offences matters. In terms of section 55(a)(5), it empowered the courts that had the jurisdiction to hear these matters and continue hearing them. In the country, 299 courts were hearing sexual offences matters. People were receiving the services that they were expecting. The Ministerial Advisory Task Team on the Adjudication of Sexual Offences Matters (MATSO) courts that the Deputy Minister had referred to were still continuing to hear these matters and were providing the package of support services that the regulations required the Department to provide. The regulations were approved on 7 February 2020. Despite that this was the time when Covid-19 began and there were hard lockdowns the Department did not stop. It continued working on the implementation of section 55(a). The Department had established a task team that heard the representation of the judiciary, Legal Aid South Africa, prosecutors and civil society. The task team was responsible for putting together the national guidelines that would navigate the different stakeholders as to how to establish Sexual Offences Courts and provide the services that were required in terms of the regulations. This was a collective endeavour. It was not only the responsibility of the Department to ensure the running of these Sexual Offences Courts. The Department did that and the Minister approved the guidelines. The problem started when the Department started the designation. She did not want to get into what the Deputy Minister had already appraised the Committee of. It was a matter that the Department was working on. Last year it was not as if the Department did not do anything. The Department wrote letters to the Chief Justice to request as the Deputy Minister said. Subsection two required a process of consultation that started with the Chief Justice. The Chief Justice had to go to the JPs. The JPs had to go to the Regional Court Presidents. That was a very tedious process. The Department envisaged a level of delay. The Department then started to engage with the Regional Court Presidents and involve them in the process of developing national guidelines so as to ensure there was proper consultation that happened at that level. The Department had a checklist that also required the provincial head, before signing the resource compliance of that court, to consult with the Regional Court President. The Department then had a consensus with the Regional Court Presidents’ Forum. The problem was the Department getting the letter of concurrence because it required the Minister to designate these courts in consultation with the Chief Justice. It was the process that the Committee approved. The Committee may need to reconsider that process because it was quite a long process. The Department got the letter of concurrence. It got the letter a day before the end of the financial year. That was on 30 March. It was too late for the Department to then do the designation. However, the Department did not rest during that process. The Department ensured that the courts were aligned with the specifications of the regulations. Right now, there were 83 courts that were aligned with the regulations that were ready to be established. Not to be designated but to be established as Sexual Offences Courts at the places that had been designated.

Adv Martin Mafojane, Chief Master, DoJ&CD, responded to the questions that related to the infrastructure of the offices in Mthatha and Pretoria. The first question was more of a general statement that related to the general delays that were spoken about in relation to the services in the Master’s Office. Linked to that was the question of what the Master’s Office was doing to deal with those delays. He discussed the backlog. The Department’s desire was that by the end of December it would have dealt with all of the backlogs. There were some risks which may hamper or inhibit achieving the desire to ensure that the determined backlog was finalised as of the end of December. One of the risks identified was loadshedding. Another risk was the stability of the Department’s IT. Internally there was a challenge and there were attempts made to capacitate the branch and to procure systems that would ensure that the Department had a better infrastructure so that the Department could serve much better. He noted that as of the end of September 2022, the Department had managed to do 421 of the backlog out of a determined number of 9856. That translated to a 4.27% achievement. The Master’s Office had noted many challenges and had reported this to the Department and Office of the Director-General. There were challenges as they were trying to migrate and acquire new space in the new data centre. There were huge challenges in the infrastructure network and many times its services were not actually available. The planned strategy to do overtime to attend to that backlog was frustrated by these two risk factors. He discussed the look and feel of a particular Master’s Office. Even prior to the Committee delegation going to this office he had been to that office in November 2021. He felt it was unfair to service at such a structure and under those conditions. Part of the office burned in 2015 and could not stand like that forever. There was a process to refurbish that office. He was informed that as of the end of September, the first week of October that the office had been completed. He had planned in his monthly planning to go look and see for himself the situation on 23 October. He believed the Department was trying to turn the situation around. The problem with the building in Mthatha is similar to the nature of the building in the Pietermaritzburg Master’s Office. It was a heritage building and as a result, the challenges that Department had to affect any correction or change, or repair was a difficult process. He noted the process that was undertaken in trying to relocate the Master’s Office in Mthatha so that they could get out of that building. It was not a building that would resonate with what the leaders in management would say ladies and gentlemen were serving ladies and gentlemen. People did not feel like they were coming into such an office. He had noted the question posed to the Minister as he was making the introductory remarks and the statement in relation to what was covered in the AG’s Report on slide 16. The AG commented on the reliability of the Department’s report, particularly dealing with two aspects. One was on slide 14, dealing with the usefulness of the report. He noted the concluding remark. It said that for the DOJ&CD, the audit findings raised on usefulness and reliability do not directly impact on service delivery. That was what the AG said. The process that the Department took in the audit engagement would clearly reflect that there would have been a better understanding had the Department had time to engage more with the AG. He discussed slide 16 of the AG’s Report. It dealt with the indicators that were more focused on the finalisation of the work done and coming to a conclusion that this may be amounting to a distortion. The remark was not in a proper context. It should have perhaps been preceded by an engagement so that one could understand the following. When the Department crafted these indicators that looked at percentages of finalising matters during a particular period.

The Chairperson asked Adv Mafojane what question he was answering.

Adv Mafojane said that he was responding to the comment that the Chairperson had made in response to the Deputy Minister’s remarks.

The Chairperson said that the Director-General would cover it.

A Departmental official responded to the matter relating to irregular expenditure. He clarified a question that the irregular expenditure was not related to an extension but an award for the security contract. The R863 million irregularity was caused by the fact that as part of the mandatory requirements part of the tender in 2016 the Department wanted this company to submit UIF certificates, which they did. This contract’s award was vetted by internal auditors as well as National Treasury. The Department was given the okay to give the award to these companies. However, when the AG audited, it was found that the company submitted UIF certificates there were fraudulent. The investigation was then started internally by the Department’s forensic investigators. The Department also engaged with the Department of Labour to establish whether the certificates were submitted from them or not. At first, the Department of Labour came back to say they could not confirm if the certificates were sent from that Department or not. The certificate had the authentic Department of Labour stamp and the Department of Labour’s letterhead. The investigation then carried on. When the Department picked up that there was a potential for fraud the matter was reported to the Hawks. So, the investigations were going on concurrently. This is related to a contract that expired in January 2021. It was a contract that expired then. The Department was only able to conclude its investigations because it had to wait for a report from the Hawks regarding the outcome of the investigation. The Department was also awaiting a response because it had also brought the matter to the Department of Labour to establish whether it did conclude its internal investigation so that the DoJ&CD could include all those matters when it was concluding its own investigation. The Department of Labour came back to the DoJ&CD last year to say that it did not conduct any internal investigation because there was no evidence to prove that these certificates were produced internally or not. The reason why the Department was saying that this was not irregular expenditure because there are no findings that proved that the Department did anything wrong. The award was based on the documents that were before the Department. All the documents that were before the Department pointed to the contracts having fully complied with the set requirements. There was an informal consultation with the Office of the CPO in this regard. There was some level of agreement with the Office of the CPO that the Department did not do anything wrong. All the documents that were expected to have been submitted from the service providers were indeed submitted. The fact that the Department had already agreed and accepted that this was irregular expenditure, the Department then felt it important that it had to write back to Treasury that these were the realisations regarding this matter. That this was a matter of fraud. There was nothing that pointed to the Department having done anything wrong. Even back then there were no systems available to help the Department with the certificate validity of the documents that had been submitted by the service providers. The Department had written to the CPO and Treasury to say that it was the Department’s view that this matter was a case of fraud and not irregular expenditure. The Department was awaiting their concurrence in this regard. This is related to the security contracts of R863 million. The Department had systems in place now to validate the authenticity of the certificates that were submitted by the security companies. Before an award, the Department had a control in place now that would double-check the validity of the certificate so that the documents that had been given to the Department were indeed valid. The system was now working perfectly. So, the Department was not writing it off. It was rather removing this matter from it being deemed irregular expenditure and it just being a case of fraud. The matter had been taken to the Hawks. He confirmed that the R900 million irregular expenditure that was reported in the year under review was mostly related to historic cases. The only new irregular expenditure that was incurred from the procurement processes in the year under review would relate to the State Attorney procurement of R32 million. The Director-General covered some of the facts about why the Department was struggling. The Department was still waiting for Treasury to come back to the Department regarding the framework that it wanted to follow in dealing with the State Attorney.

The Director-General would provide context as to why the Department was having these challenges. He discussed the AG’s Report for the year under review. There were no significant findings related to SCM processes. There were zero findings related to procurement processes. This meant that the Department’s control was beginning to be more effective around this space. It was a matter of managing these controls so that at least the Department maintained the momentum. He discussed the case of offsite storage as it related to irregular expenditure. It was an irregular expenditure case in which the Department did everything it could to make sure that this matter did not become irregular. However, the Department was not receiving cooperation from Treasury. When Treasury was approached again to ask if it could help the Department to go back to the service provider that was currently providing these services because of the magnitude that Metrofile was having. Treasury agreed and allowed the Department to go back to Metrofile to use them to still provide the services. This meant that their basis for not agreeing was basically not correct from the onset of when the Department first approached them. The amount involved there was R2.2 million, which was part of the irregular expenditure as had been reported. He responded to the question about whether legislative development underspent its budget last year by R84 million. The figure was not correct. The underspending incurred by legislative development in the previous financial year was only R28 million.

Ms Nelisiwe Pule, Acting Chief Financial Officer, DoJ&CD, discussed the repeat audit findings. The Department had identified the challenges it had relating to the audit action plans and noticed the plans to address the findings. There was also the issue of properly monitoring whether or not the Department was implementing those audit action plans. This financial year the Department was looking at the root causes for those findings in order for it to address and properly monitor the implementation thereof, together with internal audit. It was not enough to say that the Department implemented. It also needed to look at the COE. Those were the two areas in terms of dealing with repeat findings. The Department was looking at strengthening the audit report of the previous financial years. It looked at the root causes and also ensure that there was proper monitoring of the action plan itself. The balance that the Department owed the SIU was R70 million.

A Departmental official discussed the SIU payments further. The Department had found that the entry of the SIU invoices was also a problem. They did not come through the Office of the CFO. In a meeting, it was agreed that the CFO from the SIU had to ensure that once the SIU was ready to invoice the Department, those invoices should be submitted directly to the CFO so that the CFO could forward them to the relevant unit. The CFO was empowered to monitor and ensure that those invoices were paid within 30 days. For some of the invoices that were submitted, the Department had been able to pay them. Regarding the R300 million that was mentioned, the Department was able to show the CFO at the meeting that it also related to some of the payments that the Department had already made. Maybe somehow they were not able to detect it from their systems.

Adv Mashabane said that he would interact with Adv Mothibi on this matter. In his last interaction with him, he got the impression that the Department was making significant progress in terms of payment. He noted that the SIU was also not cheap. The rates of the SIU were highly market-related and competitive.

In 2020, the Minister ordered an investigation into the Master’s Offices. The Department had been battling for the past six months to say to the SIU that it could not be after more than 24 months the Department did not have the final report. In addition, the State Attorney’s investigation started some years ago. When the Department made the payments there needed to be reciprocity in terms of the conclusion of the investigation. If there was an open-ended investigation, then it was just not helping the Department. Then the Department would come to the Committee and the Committee would ask what consequence management or what measures it was putting in place to address whatever corruption was occurring in the State Attorney’s Office or Master’s Office. There had been a dynamic interaction between the Department and the SIU regarding this. At some point in July, the Department thought that the SIU did not have anything further to do about the Master’s Office. Another problem was that the rates depended on them continuing. If the Department no longer seemed to be getting reports that were assisting it then the Department felt it would have been better if the SIU just concluded those investigations. The Department never wanted to be part of those on the SIU’s roll who were not paying. The Department should be the last Department to be found not paying the SIU.

Ms Thabitha Mametja, Deputy Director-General: Corporate Services, DoJ&CD, responded to the question about the Audio Visual Remand (AVR) target that was no longer visible in the APP. The Department had initially planned to have 60 AVR sites rolled out. The Department had already rolled out 18 sites. Many of the 42 sites were not rolled out because the Department had included them in the new project called ‘court audio-visual system’, which was under procurement under SITA currently.

She discussed the unplanned maintenance of buildings. Mr Horn indicated that there seemed to be no plan in terms of maintenance of the Department’s buildings. The Department had a three-year maintenance plan that was developed in terms of the UAM (user access management plan). This maintenance plan was funded and executed by DPWI on the Department’s behalf. The projects were scheduled and get prioritised according to the condition assessment that was conducted. The Department had a meeting with the Acting Director-General of DPWI during the Department’s strategic session this week. The ranking of the conditions of the properties was explained. Through different forums, Ministerial meetings, Minister-to-Minister meetings, DG-to-DG meetings and joint task meetings that were chaired by herself and the DDG in DPWI, progress reports were provided on each asset in terms of what had been prioritised for maintenance. The UAM was a five-year programme. The Department was due to receive a new one for the 2022/2023 financial year, which would be valid for the next five financial years. The Department had also received a devolution of powers and increased threshold in terms of the implementation of minor capital works for day-to-day maintenance from R100 000 per incident to R1 million per incident for all the Department’s general basic work. The Department would be using that, amongst others, to make sure that its buildings were maintained.

She discussed the four courts that had been identified. Through the DPWI, there was a process that was being put in place to ensure that there was a total facility management programme for those four courts.

She discussed the CRT (court recording transcription) machine contract that was ending in February and the Department’s plans. The Department had noticed that the current system was outdated. The Department would need to go out into the market to test the market in terms of the latest technology that was there and that was cost-effective. Because the contract had lapsed and to avoid the Department not having anything in place, it was currently going through a procurement process via SITA to procure a new contract for at least 24 months. That would keep the lights on so that within that 24 months the Department would have then found the latest technology that was in the market to deploy.

The Chairperson sought clarity on what the Department was actually saying. It seemed that there were two processes. The Department wanted to test the market and then it wanted to use SITA to procure the other devices. Was the Department extending the current contract for 24 months while it was testing the market?  

Ms Mametja clarified that the Department was not extending the current contract. The Department was appointing a new contractor, a new service for 24 months. The current contract was only procured for 12 months. Once it expired in February, then the Department should have a new contract in place. While the Department had the next contract in place, that was why it had a reduced period of 24 months so that in that 24 months the Department would have explored opportunities that were out there. The Department would be looking to replace the 24-month contract at a later stage.

The Chairperson said it was likely that within these 24 months it was possible that the Department might procure machines that might need to be replaced because after the 24 months the Department might have a new technology. For now, the Department would be procuring the current technology which might need to be replaced quite soon because the Department was still looking for new technology. Would that not be expensive?

Ms Mametja replied the 24-month contract would be for the maintenance and support of the current technology.

Adv Mashabane made the point that because of the SITA Act, the Department had to publish the bid for maintenance of the current system through SITA. A submission was made to SITA in March when the Department realised it had 12 months with the current contract. It then started working and in July it approached SITA. There was a challenge and SITA was not making progress. The Department had earlier written to the Minister of Communications because the Act said that only the Minister of Communications could give an exemption. The Department asked the Minister of Communications for an exemption because the current transversal that SITA had was problematic. It was set up in 2014, it had expired and was now existing on a month-to-month basis. Treasury was very concerned about it. There were new players in the market that were not covered in that contract. The challenge the Department was going to have been that it was five months to February now, whether the Department was going to be done with the procurement. If SITA did not come back the Department was going to write another letter raising the same concern. He noted that the Department was not using this as an excuse. SITA was a serious constraint. The previous day, Dr Newhoudt-Druchen made a proposal that maybe the Department should appear before this Committee with DPWI. His suggestion was that over and above appearing with DPWI the Department also needed to appear with SITA. SITA was a serious constraint. SITA was created out of an Act passed by this Parliament. 

Ms Mametja discussed the issue of the lifts in Limpopo in the Polokwane High Court. The Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) had been engaged and was on site. All the Block B lifts were working. The Block A5 lifts were working. The only lifts that were not working yet were Block A2, which the OEM was currently attending to.

The Chairperson said that the view was that the Committee was still going to deal with the issues relating to infrastructure before the end of the term. The Committee would be meeting with the two Ministers and the Department. The Committee was going to go into much detail about what it had found in all the provinces that it had visited. Those reports would be of great assistance in that meeting. He asked that the officials not go into deeper infrastructural answers, for now. The Committee would deal with them later.

Ms Mametja discussed the issue of the filing of records in the Master’s Office in Thohoyandou. She agreed that it was not in good condition. The Department had appointed a new contractor that would assist it with the offsite storage facility to keep all those files that were sitting in the Master’s Office in that region. The Department also wanted to scan, archive and assist in ensuring that the Department digitalise those records at the end.

She discussed the number of employees who were living with disabilities. Out of the 357 employees that are living with disabilities, 51 of them were youth. In terms of the DPSA, the target that the Department was supposed to reach in terms of the overall disability target was 2%. The Department was dissatisfied with the 2% and had set a slightly higher target.

She discussed the SG contract that had been vacant for too long.  Due to the fact that the evaluating system in the DPSA was no longer there, the Department then had to finalise the evaluation through a benchmark. The Department had now submitted the report to the Minister for approval of that evaluation report. Once it was approved then the contract would be advertised. She discussed the four heads of offices in the State Attorneys. This was the same reason that delayed the Department to finalise the evaluation. The Department had since then finalised the evaluation of those offices and they would be going out on advert soon.

Adv Mashabane said that he took the point that the Department would not go into greater detail on the infrastructure issues. However, there were issues regarding the general relationship with Public Works. In previous years, Public Works delegated just R100 000 per incident for maintenance. The Department had made a request that that amount be increased. On Monday, the Department got a letter confirming that the Department could increase day-to-day maintenance to R1 million. He had subsequently delegated that amount to the provincial heads and the court managers. The Department thought that was going to assist it in dealing with the general management that was lower than R1 million. Though there were conditionalities placed on the Department in terms of technical capacity, engineers and so on, the Department was continuing with the engagement. The challenge was that over the past three years there had not been a Director-General in DPWI. He had interacted with three Acting Director-Generals. The current Director-General was also acting but if he could stay in that position for the next 12 to 24 months, based on the plans and vision he had, then the Department could make significant progress.

He noted that Adv Breytenbach had raised the issue of the Pretoria Magistrates Court that had burnt down in 2010. It remained a serious embarrassment. It is more than ten years down the line and the officials located there were still working in deplorable conditions. The Department had engaged the DPWI. The DPWI said it was a matter between DoJ&CD and Treasury. The Department had at some stage asked if it could go to Cabinet to have this matter resolved. There was a contractor that was supposed to come back. He was given an assurance that by October the contractor would now be back on site. He was not sure if they were back on site. It continued to be a serious issue of concern. The political leadership in both the Department and DPWI were working very hard and with the R1 million the Department got now it looked like it might be the beginning of things changing. The Department explained their constraints even with regard to the acquisition of land. There was land in rural areas where traditional leaders were always saying that they could give Department that land to construct a new court to move from the shack where it was. Then there was the issue of site clearance which took forever. He noted the number of quantity surveyors was not enough. He noted that one quantity surveyor had a ratio of 80-something cases. In the private sector, the ratio was one quantity surveyor dealt with five cases.

He discussed local government and municipal councils that had to play a role in that respect, and they were not assisting. It was a very difficult situation that the Department was dealing with. The Department was looking at a number of issues. The Department also needed to look at the deployment of alternative building technology where it did not necessarily wait for bricks and mortar which took a long time. Whereas it could deploy what could be put in place in a space of six to 12 months. In that respect, they could improve access to justice.

There was a question Adv Swart raised about the Minister making reference to R146 billion of contingent liability. He thought that was relating to the entire State and not necessarily the Department. There was the contingent liability for the State and the contingent liability for the Department. In terms of the policies that the Solicitor-General had developed, and the Department was going to Cabinet, that was part of what the policies and strategies sought to manage so that in the short and immediate term the Department reduced that number to a manageable number.

He discussed the Department’s overdraft facility. Those were the options that the Department was looking at. The Department was looking at the option of a deposit as well. The Department accepted the proposal made. He hoped Treasury would assist the Department to ring-fence the legal budget so that those who did not budget for legal services and yet engaged themselves in legal services, know that such services would not be available.

He added that he had promised to deal with the R28 million under expenditure, in respect of the legislative development programme.

The Chairperson commented that the Committee would do whatever it could on its side, however, would it also not be proper for the Minister to take a proposal to Cabinet around the issue of non-payment of Departments and other organs of State? The President met with all Cabinet Ministers and the PICC met with Premiers and Executive Mayors. The Committee would do whatever it could on its side, but the executive must also play its part.

Adv Mashabane said that the Department accepted that proposal. The Department would do that including releasing a list which would be a ‘name and shame’ kind of list. It would surprise the Committee which Departments were in the top ten on non-paying Departments. The Committee would be shocked to see who was not paying legal fees. The Department took the point and would do that.

He discussed legislative development. There was a lot of expertise that was built in legislative drafting over many years. In recent years there were the challenges of attrition, retirement and death. That was why there were capacity challenges. There was also the challenge of the occupation-specific dispensation. In the upcoming six months, the Department would be doing a lot of work to improve capacity there as well as trying to recruit you State Law Advisors who could then be taken through with the DDG and the team that was currently doing a great job of transferring skills and building capacity. The capacity that the Department operated on until now was a capacity that was built over many years. The Department needed to replenish and rebuild that capacity so that it continued to maintain the highest standards of legislative drafting that the Department was known for.

On the reduction of targets, he pointed out that earlier in the year, the Department had presented to the Committee and was admonished to go back. The Department had addressed those issues that the Committee had identified for the current year. Most of those were the transformational targets and indicators that sought to turnaround the Department. The Department brought them back and was still guided by the five-year priorities that it hoped to achieve by the end of March 2024.

He discussed the consequence management issue that Ms Maseko-Jele raised. The AG was referring specifically to three cases that dated back to 2010, 2016 and 2018. He noted how the Department was dealing with these matters, particularly emanating from the year under review. The Department was strengthening its Labour Relations Unit and its Legal Unit so, that whenever non-compliance issues were raised the Department would immediately act on it. In the year under review, the AG picked up issues about where the Department awarded tenders and there was an involvement of public servants. The involvement of public servants was in violation of the Act that prohibited public servants from doing business with the State. Some of it was not necessarily officials from the Department but from other Departments. The Department was following all those and committed to really strengthening its system and measures of dealing with consequence management. He discussed the AG saying that the Department was not strong in monitoring. Towards the end of the year under review, the Department had increased its capacity. The Department had filled all Chief Director posts. The AG had further noted that for the entire year the Department did not have a CFO. Now the Department did have a CFO. He discussed the Department’s audit turnaround plan. The Department would be looking at the issues the Committee raised around rapid findings. The Department’s audit turnaround plan, which it could share with the Committee, was specifically prioritising dealing with repeat findings. The CFO was coordinating a committee of colleagues at a DDG level that looked at the rapid implementation of the audit turnaround. The Department was convinced that with the measures that it had it should be able to make improvements.

He discussed the Information Regulator. The Department would deal with the issues the Regulator was raising. He thought that the Regulator was quick to come and complain to the Department than to engage with the Department. As the Regulator was set up the Department had been assisting. Now he got a sense that the Regulator had the capacity. They had appointed a CFO but there was a CFO who left there. There was a CEO who left. The Regulator had a new CEO and a new CFO. He had received a letter from the new CEO last week requesting that the Department relinquish all the delegations that it had been assisting them. The Department had no reason to hang on to those delegations, it would be a relief. By next week the Department should be able to meet with the Regulator and delegate all the responsibilities so that they could take full accountability. By saying so the Department was not saying that it would not continue to assist. The Department would continue to make itself available to assist the Information Regulator. It was regrettable that it got to this point where they felt that they could not achieve their objectives because of the Department. The intention of the Department had been to assist them and do all that was possible to deal with all the challenges that they were facing.

The Chairperson said he wanted to contextualise the matter. There were two issues. One was the ransomware attack. The Regulator had been requesting the Department to account. That was where the complaint about not getting cooperation came from. Then there was the frustration of listing which had nothing to do with the Department per se, it had something to do with Treasury. In terms of the law, they were independent and wanted to get that listing from Treasury. That had not been forthcoming and as a result, they were forced to be an extension of the Department, which they sometimes had to do oversight on. The biggest bone of contention, according to the Regulator, was how the Department had been responding to the ransomware attack.

Adv Mashabane responded to the issue of the ransomware attack. The Department had records to prove that every time the Regulator asked for information the Department had responded and provided information. It may well be that maybe they were not satisfied with the information. However, there should be an acknowledgement. The ransomware attack against the Department was a test case for them. They did not necessarily have a point of reference to another Government Department of the same size and the same magnitude of what the Department went through. There were a lot of mistakes that the Department made as it was trying to comply with the Act because it was the first major experience. The Department was mindful of the fact that whatever the Department was going to do together would go a long way in helping Government in broad terms and other Government Departments. For example, there was a question that asked if the Department knew who hacked it. It might seem that the Department was not being forthright when it said that it did not know. However, the matter was also with the police and the Hawks. So far the Department had not yet received an update. He noted that generally in Government there were serious challenges around cyberspace governance. That would include general cyber security and all that. He noted that if one did a general audit on the state of cyberspace governance-related matters in the State then it needed to be admitted that there were challenges. The Department would continue to engage with the Regulator on specific matters because the Department needed their help.  

Ms Pule explained that in terms of the allocations, R100 million was allocated to NPA to assist with the prosecution of the cases. R11 million was allocated to the NPA for training in specialised commercial crime. R12 million went to the Department of Justice for the development of the integrated criminal justice strategy. R12 million was allocated to the Department of Justice for the employment of foreign language interpreters. R13 million for biometric systems at ports of entry and that was the Department of Home Affairs. R10 million was allocated to Home Affairs for a case management system. R19 million to Home Affairs for equipment at the refugee reception centres. R28 million to Home Affairs for the implementation of the judgement of the Constitutional Court. R50 million for the Financial Intelligence Centre to assist with its reporting, intelligence gathering and compliance processes. R23 million for the anti-corruption strategy communication activities allocated to GCIS. R8.2 million for the National Anti-Corruption Strategy of South Africa. R5.8 million was allocated for the training of Government officials.

The Chairperson said that this information could be submitted in writing. Dr Newhoudt-Druchen wanted to get a sense. The Committee did have a sense. The Department could supplement it by submitting the whole thing in writing to the Committee.

Adv Mashabane said that due to Covid Departments were generally not doing well with their expenditure. He noted that the Director-Generals would meet to review so that when they submitted they could give the Committee a sense of the expenditure of the allocation. The Department noted the comments of the Committee. They helped the Department to go back and refine, either how the Department drafted its indicators or how it tried its best as it looked to implement its targets. The Department knew the challenges, but it was convinced that when it came back it would tell the Committee that it had won the championship.

The Chairperson asked the Deputy Minister for his closing remarks. Before the Deputy Minister spoke the Chairperson recognised Dr Newhoudt-Druchen.

Dr Newhoudt-Druchen said that she had a question for Adv Kambula. She thanked Adv Kambula for her response about the delegation to the Regional Courts and the fact that the Department was still awaiting on that matter. She discussed the Department’s report and the current year with regard to the implementation of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences and Related Matters) Amendment Act. On page 60 it said that for the current year the Department had 13 078 new cases of sexual offences captured at the District Courts. So, 13 000 and only 4000 went on to the Regional Courts. Which meant about 9000 were left that was still there in the District Courts. She assumed that it was still outstanding. She was not sure if it was outstanding matters from previous years and carried over or what was the case. That was why the concern was raised. She understood that all courts dealt with sexual offences, but the outstanding cases were a very high number when only 4000 reached the regional courts. She wanted an answer to that, but it could be in writing.

Mr Tsetse Malema, Deputy Director-General, Acting Head: Court Services, DoJ&CD, said that the Department noted the concern. It would look at the matter and provide the report as proposed. The Department would provide reasons for why it had so many cases. The Department would accept the offer that it could provide the report in writing.

Deputy Minister Jeffery commented on the last question. It was an issue that the Committee also should be looking at. The Department would respond in writing. His fear was that those cases were not still sitting with the District Court, they were withdrawn. He noted that the number of withdrawals was quite high. In Umlazi, in eThekwini Municipality, there used to be two sexual offences courtrooms. That had been reduced. Umlazi had a high number of sexual offences reported at the police station. That was then reduced to one because the Regional Magistrates said that there were not enough cases. He was now told that Umlazi had combined with Umbumbulu and that they had a combined roll for sexual offences. He thought that it was something that needed to be looked at. He noted that in terms of the Criminal Law Sexual Offences Act, there had to be an Annual Report on the implementation of that Act. Similarly, with the Child Justice Act. Those reports were tabled in Parliament. He urged the Committee to find the time to read them and interrogate them. It was no use looking at doing more. It was also looking at what was done and how that was working. He noted that the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences and Related Matters) Amendment Act was in effect. The Domestic Violence Act was about to come into effect. That was the status of those. It was not as if they were sitting. He noted that this was primarily the Department accounting to Parliament and the Committee’s interrogation of the Annual Report. It was really for the Director-General and the officials. He was particularly concerned with some of the comments the Members had made in that if one looked at the reports it was positive and things were going well and being done but when one went to the ground it was a different picture. The Committee’s oversight visits were very important. The Committee had a very key role to play in improving the delivery of justice in South Africa.

Adv Mashabane expressed his gratitude to the Members of the Committee for the constructive criticism that it always gave the Department. He noted the acknowledgement of the strides the Department was making. The Department took into account all those areas of work that the Committee had raised. The Department could now only focus on improving. The Sixth Parliament would assist the Department to deliver on its mandate and make sure that the people of this country had improved access to justice as well as received the service delivery that they expected from the Department. One part that the Department was aware of was that it was not easy, but the Department was continuing. The capacity that the Department had brought in over the past year had injected the necessary urgency and energy that was required.

The Chairperson thanked the Director-General and members of the Department. He also thanked the Deputy Minister. He communicated what the Committee had decided. The Committee had decided to take a portfolio approach in dealing with some of the portfolio-related challenges. If one went through the reports one would realise that there were issues between Legal Aid SA and Correctional Services. There were issues between Justice and the Information Regulator and SIU. The Committee would be convening a meeting with the Minister and all heads of entities reporting to the Committee, including the Director-General and the National Commissioner. That meeting would be physical so that the Committee could quickly thrash out some of the issues and ensure that there was maximum cooperation within the cluster. He noted that there was no doubt that a lot of effort had been put, which was commendable, by the Department in ensuring that it improved how it worked and operated. The Committee was cognisant of the fact that the environment sometimes was complex. There were external dependencies like Public Works and SITA that should be factored in. The Committee was cognisant of that fact. The Committee felt that special effort should be put into the Master’s Office. Even with the answers that the Committee had received today it was not yet convinced that the Department was on top of the issue with respect to the Master’s Office. That office was very close to vulnerable people. A lot of effort should be put there. As the Members were thinking of writing a report to the National Assembly the Committee should be thinking seriously about what the Director-General said about issues between the Department and SITA. He noted that the functioning of court recorders was very key to service delivery. From the report that the Members received, they had reason to be worried that one or two things might not go well come February. It would not only be because of the Department. The Department was also dependent on other entities like SITA. The Members should think about how they should intervene in this area. He noted that the thing about one machine per multiple courts did have an effect in increasing backlogs. The Committee needed to look into how it intervened to ensure that the issue between the Department and SITA was resolved. So, that the courts had the necessary tools to function properly. That was at the coalface of service delivery. The Committee needed to be thinking about what it should be proposing to the National Assembly and what the National Assembly should be resolving as far as this matter was concerned. The Committee would bear in mind that this time next year when it met with the Department it would be the last time that this Committee met with the Department. The issue would be how everyone wanted to be remembered in this term. Did the Committee want to be remembered as people who were just fixing the Zama Zamas or did the Committee want to be remembered as the people who drastically brought change to the lives of South Africans? There needed to be a concerted effort from the Department and the Committee.

The Chairperson thanked all those in attendance.

The meeting was adjourned.