Justice Budget: input by Units of National Prosecuting Authority

This premium content has been made freely available

Justice and Correctional Services

18 June 2004
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

A summary of this committee meeting is not yet available.

Meeting report


18 June 2004


Ms F Chohan-Kota (ANC)

Relevant documents
Presentation by Asset Forfeiture Unit
Presentation by Special Investigations Unit
Presentation by Directorate of Special Operations
Special Investigations Unit Draft Annual Report 2003/2004
Presentation by Sexual Offences and Community Affairs Unit
National Prosecuting Authority Report to Parliament 2003/2004 [please email

The various units of the National Prosecuting Authority presented reports on their successes and challenges. During the discussion, the National Director of Public Prosecutions said that the NPA hoped that the Committee would amend the Criminal Procedure Act to allow appeals on factual issues. There had been a number of very bad judgments formulated in such a manner that they did not raise a point of law. These could not be appealed against because factual issues could not be appealed against.

The Sexual Offences and Community Affairs (SOCA) Unit stated that a critical challenge was transferring its specialist skills to other courts which heard sexual offences, the need for an intergovernmental relations framework and improving SOCA resources. Members sought clarity on the operational challenges facing SOCA’s maintenance matters and its plans to reach the rural areas.

The Specialised Commercial Crimes Unit (SCCU) indicated that it experienced challnges in the levels of proficiency of its personnel, its case loads, severe backlogs in the Road Accident Fund (RAF) cases and especially insufficient personnel capacity. The Committee asked whether there was any overlapping of functions between the SCCU and other NPA units.

The Asset Forfeiture Unit (AFU) saw as a challenge the legislative amendments that were needed to enable it to execute its mandate more effectively. Members sought clarity on the status of the Criminal Asset Recovery Account (CARA) and whether the Victims Fund could be used to redistribute funds to individual victims of crime.

The Special Investigations Unit (SIU) was asked if it was still having trouble with the proclamations it issued and about investigations into the Road Accident Fund and Master’s Office.

Presentation by Directorate of Special Operations
Adv Leonard McCarthy, Deputy National Director of Public Prosecutions: Directorate of Special Operations, stated that the critical challenges for the Directorate of Special Operations (DSO) was to build on the good work that it has done and to attempt to double its impact. The second major challenge was to provide DSO personnel with the necessary skills, as this would ensure that no mistakes are made in the courtroom. The final challenge was the much needed improvement in stakeholder relations, as it was imperative for the DSO to get all the necessary information from the other law enforcement agencies. This was a major focus area for the DSO for this year.

Mr B Ngcuka, National Director of Public Prosecutions, stated that the challenge was to maintain the momentum that the DSO has built so far, and to meet the public expectation that has been generated over the last few years. The third was to ensure, in the midst of all the attacks directed at the NPA, that the organisation remained united and focused. He stated that the problem has been that the management and leadership of this organisation has been diverted from running the institution, because it had to focus its attention on diverting the attacks. This affected the moral of the personnel and was destroying the organisation.

The Chair stated that on one of the Committee’s study tours to Beaufort West they were informed that the Scorpions had withdrawn from the area before the matter came to trial. She asked the DSO to comment on this.

Adv McCarthy responded that the DSO always endeavoured to give the best possible support to court cases. The criticism within the NPA against the Scorpions was that it needed a greater visibility in the courts, so that witnesses could testify properly as well as seeing skilled prosecutors handling cases. He undertook to investigate the matter and would provide Members with a report by Monday 21 June 2004.

Imam G Solomon (ANC) asked whether any action has been taken against Mr MacAdam, the Scorpions official who was involved in the Richmond Tavern incident in Kwazulu-Natal in 1999.

Adv McCarthy replied that the Scorpions were concerned when one of its members was criticised, and it acted very harshly and fairly against its employees who violate the law. The matter was sub judice and it would be improper to comment on the matter at this point in time.

Mr Ngcuka added that there was nobody who has worked as hard to ensure peace in the Kwazulu-Natal province as Mr MacAdam. Today there were more than 130 people behind bars because of the work of Mr MacAdam. He stated that he was not prepared to "sit here and hang Chris MacAdam for things he did not do", because he worked very hard and there was nobody who could equal his record in the South African criminal justice system. Mr MacAdam does not deserve what he has been getting. He urged Parliament to take note of this.

He stated that his office has been appealing to this Committee to amend the Criminal Procedure Act to allow appeals on factual issues, because the NPA was unable to appeal against a number of very bad judgments at the moment. This was, in the view of the NPA, a travesty of justice. The judicial officers had a tendency to formulate their judgments in such a manner that they did not raise a point of law, and it could thus not be appealed against because factual issues could not be appealed against. He requested that the law be amended to allow such appeals..

Imam Solomon asked the DSO to explain the current relationships between the DSO and the other law enforcement structures, including the Public Protector.

Adv McCarthy responded that there was a perception that the DSO was at loggerheads with the Institute for Security Studies (ISS). The DSO was working with SAPS in the Eastern Cape province and together 300 people have been arrested and 114 of those have been convicted, and R34m of their assets has been confiscated. This took place under the project called JACKED. In the Western Cape province the DSO and SAPS were addressing the top crime targets. In Pretoria in specialised areas such as cybercrime, crime scene management and electronic surveillance the DSO and SAPS personnel were trained jointly, and the DSO cannot successfully execute its large drug busts without the help of SAPS.

He stated that Mr Willie Hofmeyr, Deputy National Director of Public Prosecutions: Special Investigations Unit, was directed by Mr Ngcuka to finalise the guideline agreement on the Section 31 Co-ordinating Committee. This was completed and was made available to SAPS, and a final version would be made available for consideration by the Ministers in June 2004. It would be incorrect to assert that the stakeholders would not function successfully without the Section 31 committee, because they do operate well on the ground in the absence of that committee.

Institutions such as the Financial Services Board (FSB), Johannesburg Stock Exchange (JSE), South African Revenue Service (SARS) and all other government departments flocked to the DSO. The DSO did need to significantly improve its work with the National Intelligence Agency (NIA) as probably less than 5% of the DSO’s operational success could be attributed to information its received from NIA.

Mr G Magwanishe (ANC) asked whether the DSO enjoyed a working relationship with any of its counterparts in the rest of Africa or in the SADC region and, if so, whether these relationship resulted in the transferral of skills.

Mr Ngcuka replied that this was a "yes and no" answer. The DSO has been working with the Ugandan authorities as they have sent 4 personnel to South Africa during 2003 for attachment. The DSO also worked with the Mozambican authorities as well as the United Kingdom in setting up their version of the Scorpions. The African Prosecutors Forum (APF) was also being established, who’s purpose was to enable experiences to be shared so that the law enforcement agencies could work together.

Adv McCarthy added that the DSO received information on the commission of crimes from all countries, including many of the African countries. He stated that Mr Ngcuka was very requested by the International Criminal Court (ICC) to make this version of the scorpions available to it. The United Kingdom sent its White Piper to the DSO for comment, and Mr Ngcuka recently invited the United States attorney of Texas who stated that they were using the Scorpions model to great effect.

Presentation by Auxiliary Services
Mr Silas Ramaite, Deputy National Director of Public Prosecutions: Auxiliary Services, stated that the various units that fell within auxiliary services were not necessarily independent units, but were instead units that provided additional or supplementary service to the NPA. The biggest challenge facing this unit was that it focused specifically on certain types of customers, such as focusing on women, children and victims in the Sexual Offences and Community Affairs (SOCA) Unit. These were areas within the criminal justice system that required specific focus. This customer satisfaction approach was the most important because the aim was to make the customer’s experience of the criminal justice system as pleasant as possible.

He stated that auxiliary services also focused on capacitating its prosecutors to understand the specific needs of these sectors in order to service them properly, whilst also achieving better results. Auxiliary services began as a support structure but, as its ability to deliver its mandate efficiently improved, more and more was expected of it. Thus the issue of resources for the unit would become an issue in the near future.

The other challenge was in sustaining the unit’s momentum in trying to meet the increasing demand, as well as to take the service even further in providing skills and more resources to the ordinary prosecutor.

Presentation by Sexual Offences and Community Affairs Unit
Adv Thoko Majokweni, Head: Sexual Offences and Community Affairs (SOCA) Unit, stated that the first critical challenge that faced the SOCA was its effectiveness in transferring its specialist skills, and to ensure that those specialist skills that exist in the sexual offences courts actually rub off onto the other ordinary regional courts which hear sexual offences specifically. Efforts were being made to have provincial representation of SOCA members who would be able to transfer those skills and drive the processes in specific regions. Three areas have been identified to date: the Western Cape, Eastern Cape and Kwazulu-Natal.

The second issue was that SOCA cannot wait for the Intergovernmental Relations Framework Bill, because SOCA was experiencing difficulties in working with institutions over which it did not have authority. The third issue was resources, especially as SOCA relied on donor funding which was not a sustainable option.

The Chair requested Ms Majokweni to provide a report on the progress made in staffing the sexual offences courts, as well as on SOCA’s proposals for the intergovernmental relations issue. This would then be considered by the Committee for possible inclusion in the legislation.

Adv Majokweni agreed.

The Chair asked Ms Majokweni to explain the unit’s operational challenges as far as maintenance was concerned.

Adv Majokweni replied that this was a difficult subject because it was not well-liked by many service providers, especially the males. The primary aim at the moment would be to kill the maintenance queues, because they were a source of indignation to women. Efforts were being made to introduce an appointment system. The SOCA was currently investigating the maintenance management aspects relating to both the civil and criminal maintenance matters. A total of 80 prosecutors have been appointed to focus exclusively on maintenance matters, and the Department has allocated 55 maintenance investigators. This has benefited the system substantially, but SOCA has not yet quantified that benefit nor costed it.

The Chair stated that the Committee has proposed that the Department, in the courts which it has identified as priorities for maintenance issues, to appoint investigators that are sufficient in number to manage those caseloads even if it meant that there would then be other courts that would go without investigators. This was needed simply because it did not help to appoint a single person where that person would fail anyway.

Adv Majokweni responded that it was an excellent proposal.

The Chair stated that there appeared to be an increase in foster grant applications which result in backlogs, and asked whether SOCA was involved in this at all.

Adv Majokweni responded that SOCA has not engaged with the Department of Social Development on this, but has focused solely on the relationship between the grants they allocated to young children and the maintenance grants. The NPA was willing to extend the scope of its engagements into those areas..

Imam Solomon sought clarity on how the Thuthuzela Centres were funded, and whether they could be sustainable as NGO’s.

Adv Majokweni replied that an NGO was running the Thuthuzela Centre in Manenberg in the Western Cape, but this was not the case in all other Thuthuzela Centres. The SOCA was actaully running the Galeshewe, Baragwanath and Lebode Thuthuzela Centres were run by SOCA themselves. The Memenberg centre was an example of SOCA fulfilling government’s directive to enter in terms of partnerships with NGO’s and civil society so that there was buy-in from that sector. That centre was being paid by the Department of Social Development to render the service in Manenberg. The investment in personnel required came directly from the SOCA budget.

Mr Ngcuka added that both projects have now been handed over to the NPA.

Ms V Meruti (ANC) sought clarity on the cycle time for the sexual offences cases, especially those involving children.

Adv Majokweni responded that one of the greatest successes of the Thuthuzela model was that it drastically reduced the cycle time for cases. It was unique in the sense that sexual offences cases usually took about 18-36 months to be finalised, whereas the target for the sexual offences courts has been set at 12 months and the NPA has surprised itself as that target has been reached. It now takes between 9 and 12 months to finalise a case.

The Wynberg Thuthuela Centre in the Western Cape was attached to a special Thuthuzela court, and the case cycle at that site has been reduced to 4 months.

Ms Meruti asked SOCA to explain its plans to reach out to the rural areas, especially in provinces which are as vast as the Northern Cape.

Adv Majokweni responded that SOCA focused particularly on rural and previously disadvantaged areas, such as the Lebode Centre which was in an utterly rural place. This centre was used as an experiment to test whether such a centre could function in rural areas and it was a success, although it did need extra resources. This was the preferred model to give expression to the President’s call to provide victim support, and Chile has already adopted the model. A total of 6 more would be established.

Ms Meruti asked if the Northern Cape would be allocated one of the six centres.

Adv Majokweni replied that that province already had one in Galeshewe, and Upington was being considered as a possible site.

Presentation by Specialised Commercial Crime Unit
Mr Chris Jordaan, Head of the Specialised Commercial Crime Unit, stated that he would confine his input to the three major challenges that faced the SCCU. As referred to earlier by both Mr Ngcuka and Mr Ramiete there were constraints in the rolling out of infrastructure. The unit was faced with a major challenge by the lack of sufficient capacity as far as personnel was concerned. It was very difficult to recruit suitably skilled personnel, the primary reason probably being that commercial crime was perceived to be somewhat boring and only the truly committed prosecutor would not drown in the perceived boredom. Secondly the levels of proficiency were dangerously low because the NPA was still saddled with the legacy of the past, as commercial crime was not specifically prioritised in terms of prosecuting priorities before 1998 when Mr Ngcuka took office. This remained a major challenge today.

The second operational challenge was the case loads. The Pretoria office, which had a fairly strong personnel component, had an average case load of 48 per person. The Johannesburg office was in an even worse position as each prosecutor had an average of 138 cases, and it was impossible for any prosecutor to handle that kind of case load.

The third major challenge was the severe backlogs in the Road Accident Fund (RAF) cases. The SCCU had two prosecutors attending to these cases at its RAF unit in Randburg, yet these prosecutors were not even on the SCCU’s books. The situation was so critical that Mr Ngcuka has put 5 new contract positions at Mr Jordaan’s disposal, because the SCCU did not have the necessary funds to create 5 permanent positions. The SCCU did embark on a recent recruitment drive to fill these 5 positions, but it was fairly unsuccessful. He stated that the human resource division would be embarking on a headhunting mission to fill these positions.

The Chair asked Mr Jordaan to indicate the approximate number of personnel in his unit.

Mr Jordaan replied that there were approximately 60, but not all have been filled. The Pretoria office had 22 prosecutors and 4 deputy directors. The Johannesburg staff complement including the newly-created positions included 15 posts. The Durban and Port Elizabeth offices had 5 or 6 posts. He stated that Mr Ngcuka announced yesterday that it was not possible to establish a unit in the Western Cape due to financial constraints.

The Chair asked Mr Jordaan to indicate the ideal complement.

Mr Jordaan responded that it would require on average 10 fairly experienced prosecutors per court, as well as one or two management deputies.

The Chair stated that she wanted Mr Jordaan to indicate the current total staff complement for his unit.

Mr Jordaan replied that the operational figure should be approximately 30-35 prosecutors.

The Chair asked Mr Jordaan to indicate the ideal number of prosecutors needed for those courts that were already operational.

Mr Jordaan responded that this would be in the amount of 30 prosecutors.

The Chair stated that the SCCU thus already had an ideal complement.

Mr Jordaan replied that the SCCU currently had approximately 28 prosecutors whereas it needed 30.

The Chair requested Mr Jordaan to provide a document that details this structure.

Imam Solomon asked Mr Jordaan to explain whether there was any overlapping between the work done by his unit and the other units in the NPA.

Mr Jordaan responded that the Pretoria office did experience some overlapping to an extent as far as the commercial work that the SCCU investigated was concerned, as well as the commercial crime that fell into the ambit of organised crime. The overlap was not due to a difficulty to implement the respective mandates, but this was to a very small extent.

Ms Meruti stated that the percentages of female employees in the unit have decreased, whilst the male complement has increased. She asked Mr Jordaan to explain this occurrence.

Mr Jordaan replied that this was a problem and the SCCU has been struggling with this problem since its inception, and the unit was constantly looking at addressing it..

Presentation by Asset Forfeiture Unit
Mr Willie Hofmeyr, Head of the Asset Forfeiture Unit (AFU), stated that he would highlight some of the major achievements and successes of the AFU. The first was that the AFU has enjoyed greater success in court in the recent past, despite the focus placed by the media on the judgments that were handed against the AFU. The AFU had an 83& success rate over the last year, whereas during the previous year it enjoyed a success rate of only 44%. He pointed out that the AFU still maintained an 85% overall case success, but these percentages merely referred to those cases in which a judgment was handed down.

One of the challenges that were faced by the AFU and which related to a legislative amendment that it would present to this Committee on the definition of an "instrumentality". The Supreme Court of Appeal adopted a significantly narrow meaning of the term because it feared that a broader interpretation could be unconstitutional. The AFU was working with its legal counsel to make the meaning less narrow than it was at the moment, but also more specific. This was an important matter because it hampered the AFU’s action taken against the "dirty hotels" in the Johannesburg and Durban regions.

A further legislative amendment which the AFU hoped to present to this Committee by the end of the year was that of fugitives who were still able to litigate against South African law enforcement agencies from foreign lands. It was internationally accepted that fugitives were barred from all litigation until they surrendered themselves to justice. Furthermore, in certain civil forfeiture cases there were no criminal investigations, and a legislative amendment would then have to be considered to allow the AFU access to bank records etc.

The AFU has managed to expand the volume of cases it dealt with at a very rapid rate over the past few years, with the average growth rate being at 65% per annum. Over the last year the AFU has deposited R36m into the Criminal Asset Recovery Account (CARA), and the total amount deposited to date stood at R55m. This figure represented more than the total cost of the AFU to date.

The AFU was challenged to indicate just how large a slice of the criminal proceeds the AFU was recovering, and it was forced to concede that while it was beginning to make an impact much more needed to be done before AFU could say it was making a big dent into criminal proceeds. The AFU was working with Treasury on this, and the AFU estimated that it would have to recover ten times its current recovery figures to make a real impact.

The Chair asked whether the AFU also dealt with the "social nuisance" crimes.

Mr Hofmeyr replied in the affirmative, partly because they were cases that were reported to the AFU but also because the AFU wanted to send the message that crime did not pay, whether it was a large or smaller crime. In fact the smaller cases were valuable learning experiences for the AFU’s newer staff. A vital component in covering every case in the country was to ensure that the necessary capacity was put in place in the magistrates courts, especially the regional courts

Mr M Malahlela (ANC) sought clarity on the length of time for which the process involving the redistribution of the funds in CARA has been in place.

Mr Hofmeyr responded that the original proposal to CARA was finalised in October 2003 and the Committee considered it in November 2003. Subsequently a range of technical issues were raised by Treasury as well as with the legalities involved and whether it should be handed over to the Department of Social Development or not. Although many of these issues were addressed by the government departments involved, the focus placed on the elections meant that the process could not be finalised. The new Minister of Justice has undertaken to get the process moving speedily, and it was hoped that within a matter of weeks it would be back on track and the technical issues would be addressed to everyone’s satisfaction

Mr Ngcuka added that a primary reason for the delay was who would be the accounting officer for the fund, plus the regulations covering the fund itself. This was approved by the Committee and Cabinet then stated that there might be legal problems in giving the drug houses to individuals, because the NPA proposed that those houses should be given back to the communities.

Mr Hofmeyr stated further that the AFU Act did make provision for money from the Victim’s Fund to be given to the victim of a particular crime that was being investigated by the AFU. A total of over R100m have so far been handed out to victims.

Imam Solomon asked Mr Hofmeyr to explain whether the AFU has appealed to the Department to equip it with the tools needed to properly execute its mandate.

Mr Hofmeyr responded that the AFU relied on Parliament to sharpen its claws. The reality of the matter was that when the AFU wanted to take powerful people’s money away their lawyers were incredibly creative in defending them. The AFU continued to litigate against them.

Imam Solomon asked if the AFU had the capacity to attend to smaller community crimes.

Mr Hofmeyr replied that the AFU was pretty strained in its capacity. It had done 500 cases over the last 5 years and many of those were still ongoing, but the AFU did try and help in all cases in which it was approached by members of the community. The drug houses were instrumentive crime type cases which were one of the more difficult areas of South African law at the moment, but it was one of the priorities identified by the AFU.

The Chair stated that she understood the Victim’s Fund to facilitate a social refabrication in line with restorative justice issues rather than to dish out money to individuals. She requested Mr Hofmeyr to clarify this.

Mr Hofmeyr replied that there was a South African Law Commission (SALC) process on this that the NPA was part of, and this process would come to finality this year. It was likely that CARA made a contribution to this sort of fund, as it would be incredibly difficult for a Committee to be establish to decide which victims would be compensated and by how much. It cannot be expected to fund it by itself. It would also take a huge bureaucracy like the RAF to assess individual claims, none of which was appropriate to put in CARA. The AFU Act stated that the funds could be used for victim empowerment purposes, which did not necessarily mean that individual victims would be compensated. It was important the government put together a comprehensive framework, because it was unrealistic for it to expect CARA or the NPA to devise this structure.

Presentation by Special Investigations Unit
Mr Hofmeyr, Head of the Special Investigations Unit (SIU), conducted the presentation (document attached) which outlined the background to the SIU, its mandate and legal scope, its service delivery targets, its growing capacity to fight corruption, the legal changes to improve effectiveness and a brief breakdown of its budget.

The Chair asked whether the SIU was still having trouble with proclamations that were issued.

Mr Hofmeyr responded that it remained a problem, especially as matters of urgency would not be able to be pursued until all these processes were finalised. The average cycle time was 3 –6 months or longer. The primary problem was that the legislation required the consent of the Premier of the province, and in most cases the SIU wasted inordinate amounts of time waiting for that consent. In most cases the problem was not due to a lack of political will but was instead because the Premier’s office was so overburdened. This process needed to be streamlined.

Ms S Swart (ACDP) stated that the SIU has been having trouble with proclamations for a long time, and he questioned the need for them at all.

Ms S Camerer (DA) asked the Mr Hofmeyr to indicate the total number of proclamations that were issued since he took over.

Mr Faik Davids, Deputy Head of the SIU, replied to these two questions by stating that 6 proclamations were issued for the reporting period: Department, Utunguru District Municipality in Kwazulu-Natal, the Free State Marketing and Tourism Board, Lydenberg TLC in Mpumalanga, Kwazulu-Natal Investments and the extension to the Northern Cape Housing Project.

Mr Swart asked whether the SIU was able to conduct any investigations mero motu, or could the SIU initiate investigations itself. This would be most needed in the terrible state that the RAF is in.

Mr Hofmeyr responded that the RAF was a concern to all law enforcement agencies. There was an extensive process between the NPA and the RAF to assist with the problem and, as stated earlier by Mr Jordaan, the SCCU was building a special capacity to deal specifically with those kinds of cases jointly with SAPS. The SIU has not sought to become active in that matter because of the legal arguments as to whether the RAF funds were in fact public funds or not.

Mr Swart sought clarity on the SIU investigations conducted on the Department, especially the Masters Office.

Mr Davids replied that the main focus of the investigation was outlined in the presentation. The SIU opted for a dual approach. The first would be to conduct a comprehensive audit based investigation at the 40 magistrates courts, with scoping exercises having already been completed at 8 of the 21 magistrates courts targeted. A total of 4 were nearing completion and 9 were still being investigated.

Mr Hofmeyr added that the SIU has not yet investigated the Masters Office due to internal problems within the Department.

Mr Malahlela stated that the donor funds were problematic because companies or foreign nations could attach strings to the funds they donated. He asked whether this was the problem with the funds donated for the SIU’s training programme.

Mr Hofmeyr replied that the funding received by the SIU has not been subject to any particular conditions. The training process has consisted of a mixture of intensive academic and on-the-job training for one year for a relatively small group of people, and they would be under the guidance of a very experiences investigator. They have all passed their exams which carried a pass mark of 75%. The SIU was thus happy that it had produced a good cadre of young investigators.

Mr L Landers (ANC) stated that a complaint was received from a Member of Parliament’s SCOPA Committee but the affidavits were not signed. He asked whether Mr Hofmeyr could indicate who the complainant it or whether the affidavits were subsequently signed and received and how the Committee could expedite this matter.

Mr Hofmeyr responded that he would be happy to give the name to Mr Landers in private. He stated that the affidavits have been signed.

Ms N Mahlawe (ANC) asked Mr Ncguka to indicate briefly why it is that the NPA has reason to celebrate 5 years of excellence.

Mr Ngcuka thanked the Committee for the support and good wishes extended to the NPA. Over the last 5 years the NPA has enjoyed support across all political parties in the fight against crime, and the NPA has enjoyed this. This was firstly a year of celebration for the country as a whole as it celebrated 10 years of freedom, which was a good achievement. The NPA believes that it has made a contribution during the 5 years in which it has been in operation, by ensuring that the democratic values and freedoms were entrenched. The NPA has contributed to ensuring and maintaining the rule of law in South Africa and the reduction in the crime rate, promotion of public confidence in the criminal justice system. The NPA has done this by executing its mandate without fear, favour or prejudice. This called for celebration.

He stated that above all the NPA was now a committed organisation that managed to boost the morale of is members, and the focus has now shifted from the prosecution to the criminal and the crime. This deserved celebration.

The Chair thanked Mr Ncguka and his team and urged him to convey the Committee’s best wishes and support to the people at the NPA who make the South African justice system work each in their own small way. The Committee looked forward to future interaction with the NPA.

The meeting was adjourned.


No related


No related documents


  • We don't have attendance info for this committee meeting

Download as PDF

You can download this page as a PDF using your browser's print functionality. Click on the "Print" button below and select the "PDF" option under destinations/printers.

See detailed instructions for your browser here.

Share this page: