General Intelligence Laws Amendment Bill (GILAB): Minister’s response to public submissions & public participation report

Meeting report

The Chairperson began by addressing Members, acknowledging their patience during technical difficulties that led to the meeting starting a bit late. He then formally opened the meeting and extended a welcome to everyone present. The Chairperson asked the Committee Secretariat if there were any apologies.

The Committee Secretariat confirmed that there were no apologies.

The Chairperson thanked her and proceeded, noting that all Members should have the agenda. He checked if the Committee Secretary was present, confirmed her presence, and reminded Members that today's agenda would focus on the progress made regarding the pick-up process, which had been transferred to the Committee. He recapped that they had received a briefing from the Department, consulted with stakeholders, received both oral and written presentations, and conducted public hearings on the B version of the Bill, received from the National Assembly. He mentioned that today's meeting would involve reporting, responses, and deliberations, with a special welcome extended to the Minister's team.

The Committee Secretariat, Ms Nola Matinise, explained that she was unable to share anything on the screen because she had logged in through the browser instead of the app, which was not functioning. She was working to resolve the issue.

The Chairperson instructed her to give screen-sharing rights to Dr Anneke Clark, the Content Advisor. He suggested they could begin with responses from the Minister, followed by the report, and then the deliberations. He believed this approach would be logical and asked for the Minister's cooperation and patience in this arrangement.

The Minister in the Presidency, Ms Khumbudzo Ntshavheni, expressed her gratitude and said she had made herself available. She noted that she might experience occasional connectivity issues but assured the Chairperson that she would remain available for the duration required.

Draft Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on the General Intelligence Laws Amendment Bill [B40-2023] on the Public Participation Process, dated 13 April 2024

Ms Nombulelo Sombetshe, Committee Content Advisor, presented a detailed overview of the public participation process for the General Intelligence Laws Amendment Bill to the Ad Hoc Committee. She highlighted key aspects of the draft report dated 13 April 2024, focusing on the process and significant issues within each subcategory.

Introduction and Overview

Ms Sombetshe began by outlining the introduction of the General Intelligence Laws Amendment Bill to the National Assembly on 17 November 2023. An Ad Hoc Committee was established to process the Bill until 19 March 2024, when the Committee adopted the report. The Bill, classified as a Section 75 bill, was then referred to the National Council of Provinces (NCOP) on 26 March 2024. The composition of the Committee, chaired by the current Chairperson, was detailed in the report.

Public Participation Process

Section two of the report, presented by Ms Sombetshe, provided an overview of the public participation process, as mandated by Section 72(1)(a) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, which requires the National Council of Provinces (NCOP) to "facilitate public involvement in [its] legislative and other processes and [those of] its Committees”. The courts have interpreted this obligation to mean that reasonable opportunities must be provided for public participation. Parliament has since established a public participation model, which the Committee adhered to by informing, involving, consulting, and giving feedback to stakeholders.

Three-Pronged Approach

To ensure effective public involvement, the Committee used a three-pronged approach:

1. Advertising for written submissions in national and community newspapers in 11 official languages.
2. Inviting stakeholders for oral submissions.
3. Holding public hearings in four provinces where previous hearings had not been conducted.

Briefing and Bill Objectives

The Minister in the Presidency, supported by the State Security Agency, briefed the Committee on the Bill’s objectives on 4 April 2024 in a virtual open meeting. The Bill aimed to implement recommendations of the High-Level Review Panel by amending various intelligence-related acts. These amendments included restructuring the State Security Agency, establishing separate domestic and foreign intelligence services, creating a National Academy of Intelligence, and providing legislative mandates for bulk interception and compliance monitoring. The Bill also sought to regulate cybersecurity and enhance accountability and control of intelligence services. Additionally, the Committee aimed to amend aspects of the legislation not initially covered in the Bill to improve oversight and operational efficiency, although approval for these amendments was not granted, prompting further consultation during the NCOP process.

Inputs and Oversight

Ms Sombetshe noted that the Committee sought inputs on additional matters related to oversight and operational efficiency, such as establishing an evaluation committee for intelligence oversight, appointing a deputy chairperson for the Joint Standing Committee on Intelligence (JSCI), and aligning reporting structures with the parliamentary system. Public submissions were invited through press conferences and provincial hearings. Section 4 of the report covered public hearings held between 13 and 28 April 2024.

Public Hearings

Public hearings were conducted in four provinces: the North West, Northern Cape, Free State, and Eastern Cape. Each hearing was held in one location per province, with the host municipality determining the venue. Parliament provided transport and refreshments for mobilised participants within a 100-kilometre radius. The successful execution of the public hearings relied on effective planning and proactive participation. Various parliamentary support units ensured compliance with the public participation model.

Statistical Analysis and Submissions

The hearings saw 654 individuals participate, with 89 making submissions: 75 in favour, three opposed, and 11 neutral. Supporters of the Bill highlighted the need for coordinated intelligence services, citing shortcomings during the July 2021 unrest and the misuse of national key points. They welcomed the re-establishment of the National Academy of Intelligence and expressed concerns about the influx of undocumented foreigners and the movement of illicit goods. Enhancing oversight measures and improving collaboration with intelligence services were seen as crucial.

Opposition and Concerns

Opponents of the Bill highlighted government's inability to enforce existing safety and security laws and the influx of undocumented foreigners, which they argued diverted resources from South African communities. Concerns were also raised about the need for safeguards to prevent encroachment on civil and individual rights.

Related Concerns and Analysis

Related concerns included the role of private security companies within the intelligence community, community policing forums, and neighbourhood watches. Improved regulation and support for these initiatives were suggested. Section 5 of the report covered national hearings and oral submissions, with stakeholders providing detailed feedback on various aspects of the Bill.

Public Hearings and Stakeholder Feedback

Stakeholders included Freedom of Religion South Africa, Intel Watch, and academics, who shared their submissions, which ranged from supporting improvements to the Bill to recommending further refinements and raising concerns about privacy, national security definitions, and ministerial accountability.

Conclusion and Recommendations

The report concluded that the National Assembly made significant changes to address public concerns, although issues regarding constitutional rights and potential abuses remained. Recommendations included enhancing oversight, making the Inspector-General of Intelligence (IGI)'s recommendations binding, and conducting a regulatory impact assessment. The need for effective intelligence services to address national and human security challenges was emphasised.

Ms Sombetshe’s presentation provided a comprehensive overview of the public participation process, the Bill's objectives, and the feedback received from various stakeholders, highlighting the ongoing efforts to refine and improve the legislation.

(see attached)

Discussion
The Chairperson expressed gratitude to Ms Sombetshe for guiding the Committee through the report. He acknowledged that the detailed presentation provided the Department with significant insights into the consultative sessions and public engagements that had taken place. He noted that Members of the Committee would need to consider any questions necessary for deliberation on the report.

He then noted the time and suggested proceeding without delay. The Chairperson proposed inviting the Department to respond and indicated that the Minister would give opening remarks before delegating the presentation of responses to the appropriate Department representatives.

Minister’s remarks

Minister Ntshavheni acknowledged the comprehensive nature of the report and the importance of considering their responses in context. The Minister highlighted their focus on the metrics provided and the specific matters they needed to address. She noted that slight adjustments would be made as the acting director presented their response to align with the report's context.

The Minister outlined three categories into which their responses could be classified. Firstly, there were technical issues where they had no objections and would support proposed amendments. Alternatively, these could be referred to the Seventh Parliament. Secondly, there were agreements with certain recommendations, but the requirement for consultation, both by Parliament and treaty obligations, might delay implementation until the next Parliament session. However, work was already underway on legislation such as bulk interception, which aligned with recommendations from public participation.

Thirdly, there were recommendations with which they disagreed, providing reasons for their stance. The Minister then introduced the Acting Director-General, Nozuko Bam, to present their responses in line with the given context and the questions posed in the metrics from the NCOP.

SSA Responses to Issues Raised in the NCOP Public Consultation Process on the General Intelligence Laws Amendment Bill, 2023

Ms Nozuko Bam, Acting Director-General, State Security Agency, acknowledged their task concerning the Bill and introduced herself, along with other officials of the State Security Agency present. She thanked the Minister for the opportunity to respond to the submissions and explained that they had used the matrix provided to draft their responses.

Ms Bam began by summarising their responses to the submissions, focusing on key points under each heading. She noted that while she would not read through the entire submission, she would touch upon the main issues. She clarified that their responses were categorised based on their stance and the need for further consultation or referral to the Seventh Parliament in some cases.

Regarding the appointment of the Deputy Chairperson of the Joint Standing Committee on Intelligence (JSCI), Ms Bam stated that they supported the proposal and had no objections, but acknowledged the need for potential referral for consultation.

Regarding annual meetings between the Joint Standing Committee and the President, they believed arrangements could be made in line with parliamentary rules to facilitate such interactions.

Regarding aligning JSCI annual reporting with parliamentary requirements, Ms Bam described it as an administrative issue, noting their submission would be guided by the appropriate committee.

Regarding the appointment of the Deputy Inspector General of Intelligence, she highlighted the constitutional basis for such appointments and suggested referral to the Seventh Parliament for further discussion and consultation.

Regarding issues of privacy and safeguards in the Bill, Ms Bam assured that the Bill provided various safeguards to protect citizens' rights.

She addressed the proposal to establish a national security media advisory, stating that existing laws were deemed sufficient for this purpose.

Regarding the powers of the intelligence coordinator, Ms Bam noted that regulations were already in place to address the coordination of intelligence activities.

She affirmed the effectiveness of current mechanisms involving the Minister and JSCI regarding deadlock-breaking mechanisms.

Ms Bam then addressed various other proposals, including insufficient measures against fund misuse, penalty provisions, location of services, and the role of the President in overseeing intelligence services.

She concluded by acknowledging that while the document may have missed some additional inputs, they agreed in principle with its contents.

(see attached)

The Minister further highlighted key points not necessarily detailed in the report. She emphasised that when addressing specific clauses or issues, such as the powers of arrest of Agency members or the security competence test, there were additional clarifications to provide.

Regarding vetting journalists at the SABC, she assured Committee Members that the SSA had never been requested to vet any journalist or editor at the SABC. Vetting of SABC executives was conducted in line with SABC policy requirements, and the SSA respected media freedom by not interfering with journalists' freedom of expression and reporting. Any past allegations were clarified by the SABC, confirming that only executives unrelated to news reporting were vetted.

The Minister also clarified the powers of the Inspector General, noting that regulations were being drafted for delegation of functions from the Minister to the Inspector General. These regulations would be consulted upon with ministers of other intelligence services, as the Inspector General oversaw both civilian and other forces' intelligence structures.

On the issue of legislating meetings with the President, she explained that it was inaccurate to imply the President refused to meet with the Committee. The President's meetings were not scheduled by himself, and mechanisms similar to how he responds to questions in Parliament could be established without legislation. She emphasised the need for extensive consultations to avoid rushing through technical matters, including typographical errors. She assured that further clarifications would be provided when necessary, including upon the receipt of the legal report.

Responses to Issues Raised in the NCOP Public Consultation Process on the General Intelligence Laws Amendment Bill, 2023

Mr Nathi Mjenxane, Parliamentary Legal Advisor, expressed gratitude and addressed the absence of the state law advisor at the meeting. He acknowledged discussions with the state law advisor regarding the legal implications of their work, stating that the legal positions presented were the result of these discussions. He emphasised the importance of considering the constitutional context of their work, highlighting Parliament's responsibility to participate in the legislative process as outlined in the Constitution.

Mr Mjenxane explained that Parliament must facilitate public involvement in the law-making process, alongside representative democracy. He discussed the significance of public participation in strengthening the legitimacy of legislation and outlined key constitutional decisions regarding public participation.

He then discussed the amendment process, emphasising the need for compatibility and uniformity with existing laws. He cautioned against unnecessary legislation and amendments, promoting the exercise of legislative restraint.

Mr Mjenxane addressed specific issues raised in the meeting, including appointing the Deputy Chairperson of the JSCI, biannual meetings between the JSCI and the President, and aligning the JSCI's annual reporting with parliamentary requirements. He provided legal analysis and proposed texts for consideration by the Committee.

Regarding the powers of the Inspector General and the issue of binding recommendations, Mr Mjenxane highlighted constitutional principles and legal frameworks, cautioning against proposals that might be inconsistent with South African law.

He also discussed issues such as security competency assessments, measures against fund misuse, penalty provisions, and the location of intelligence services, providing legal perspectives and suggesting considerations for the Committee's deliberations.

Mr Mjenxane proceeded to address specific clauses and issues raised in the meeting. He emphasised that they had made no input on certain matters and merely noted the information provided for deliberation by the Committee. He discussed various topics, including the interception of communications, powers of agencies to arrest, vetting investigations, and the role of the President.

Regarding interception of communications, he expressed satisfaction with the detail provided in drafting surveillance provisions within the Bill. He stressed the importance of distinguishing between legislative and operational information.

On the powers of agencies to arrest, he highlighted the Committee's stance on delegating the power to the police and cautioned against overreach by intelligence services.

Regarding vetting investigations, he reiterated the Committee's view that vetting should be limited to those directly involved in handling classified information or providing services within the intelligence services.

He addressed the issue of developing regulations, stating that regulations must comply with the same requirements as the original legislation and emphasised the importance of parliamentary scrutiny to prevent potential abuse of power.

Finally, on the substitution of Section 5 and the involvement of the Minister in operational matters, he noted the public input and responses from the Department, cautioning against legislative additions that may contradict established law and emphasising the principle of legality.

He concluded by thanking the Chairperson and indicating that his comments represented the final contribution on the matter.

Discussion

The Chairperson suggested a five-minute break for the Committee.

When the Committee reconvened, he expressed gratitude and indicated that it was time to proceed. He mentioned the importance of clarity-seeking questions and proposed starting with responses from the Department. He encouraged Members to seek clarification from the legal advisor's input. He then invited Members to engage, ask questions, and share comments.

Ms S Shaikh (ANC, Limpopo) expressed gratitude to the Chairperson and extended thanks to the Minister and her team for their responses to public comments. She also acknowledged the contributions of parliamentary legal services and the state law advisor in addressing issues raised during the consultation. Ms Shaikh emphasised the importance of thorough engagement on the matters at hand and suggested further consultations if necessary. She raised a question regarding strengthening oversight of intelligence services, particularly focusing on the Joint Standing Committee on Intelligence (JSCI) composed of the National Assembly and the National Council of Provinces.

Ms Shaikh sought clarity from parliamentary legal services on whether the parliamentary committee system and related oversight legislation adequately address the composition and amendments needed for joint committees. She referenced the Intelligence Services Oversight Act and inquired about its alignment with the parliamentary committee system. Further, she raised concerns about the appointment of the Deputy Inspector General (IGI) and its implications in terms of constitutional provisions. Ms Shaikh sought clarification on whether a constitutional amendment would be necessary for the proposed Deputy IGI role.

Mr C Dodovu (ANC, North West) acknowledged the importance of the inputs, contributions, and presentation provided during the meeting. He commended the Committee staff for their diligent work in compiling the report and emphasised the significance of understanding and engaging with the issues at hand. He also appreciated the responses from the Minister and the Department, stating that they helped clarify areas of agreement and concern.

Mr Dodovu raised a question regarding the proposal for an intelligence coordinator. While the Department argued against the necessity for such a role, citing existing coordination among intelligence professionals, Mr Dodovu questioned whether this coordination is regulated and captured in the regulations. He emphasised the importance of effective coordination in ensuring the collective efforts of intelligence agencies towards common objectives.

Ms C Labuschagne (DA, Western Cape) stated that she had no questions for clarity as she understood the presentations and discussions. She highlighted that the Democratic Alliance had not yet reached a point of agreement or disagreement with the recommendations, hence there were no clarity questions from her side.

The Chairperson proceeded to inquire about any potential issues from the Department's side, particularly regarding regulations. He acknowledged his close collaboration with the team involved in the process. The Chairperson then asked if there had been any interaction between the legal advisor of the Committee and the legal advisor of the Department.

Responses

Minister Ntshavheni acknowledged receipt of all documents and highlighted the alignment of views with the legal services of Parliament on most matters. She expressed willingness to reconcile any differences and noted the ultimate decision-making authority of the Committee on proposed views.

Minister Ntshavheni responded to Mr Dodovu's inquiry about regulations for coordination, confirming their existence and detailing the approval process. She explained that the regulations were approved by Cabinet and consulted with the Joint Standing Committee on Intelligence before coming into effect.

Regarding differences in views, particularly concerning the Deputy IGI, she expressed a willingness to engage with the legal advice of Parliament to contextualise their positions. The Minister also addressed concerns about the frequency of meetings with the President, suggesting that current provisions in the law were sufficient to facilitate these interactions. She cautioned against unnecessary legislative action that could lead to excessive bureaucracy. Further, she discussed proposed amendments to the Oversight Act, explaining the rationale behind the repeal of certain provisions.

She emphasised the need to create a system independent of individual personalities and highlighted existing legal mechanisms to address any overreach. Finally, she expressed a commitment to further discussion and reconciliation of differing views on the matter.

Further discussion

The Chairperson expressed gratitude to the Minister for her input and directed a question to the legal advisor regarding participatory democracy. He highlighted the Committee's responsibility to consider public views but noted that these views are not binding on the Committee. He sought clarification on whether a decision not reflecting public views could invalidate legislation or decisions.

Additionally, the Chairperson raised concerns about the time needed for engagement with the legal advisor's views, considering the impending conclusion of Parliament's sitting. He inquired about the potential impact on the Committee's programme and sought guidance from the Committee Secretary.

Acknowledging the alignment between the legal advisor's views and those of the Department, the Chairperson talked about the progress made in the General Intelligence Laws Amendment Bill (GILAB). He highlighted areas of consensus and identified differences, such as the evaluation committee, meetings with the President, and the powers of the Deputy IGI.

The Chairperson stressed the importance of preserving the progress made and sought assurance from the Minister. He invited the Minister to share her thoughts on the matter.

The Minister expressed gratitude and emphasised the importance of not disrupting Parliament's work. She highlighted the narrowing scope of differences in the engagement, attributing some differences to technicalities. She proposed that after the meeting, the legal teams from Parliament and the SSA could reconcile their views for inclusion in the report.

The Chairperson thanked the Minister and directed attention to the legal advisor to finalise the matter before the next day's conclusion.

Mr Mjenxane expressed gratitude to the Chairperson for the questions and guidance provided. He began by addressing Ms Shaikh's query regarding co-chairpersons within the Committee system. Mr Mjenxane explained that the Joint Standing Committee on Intelligence operates differently from other parliamentary committees due to constitutional provisions and the Intelligence Services Oversight Act. He clarified that the Committee's configuration does not include a co-chairperson but does allow for the appointment of an acting chairperson or deputy chairperson in the absence or incapacity of the main chairperson.

Regarding the Inspector General of Intelligence (IGI), Mr Mjenxane reiterated that the IGI's role is not prosecutorial but focused on oversight within the framework of the Constitution. He highlighted limitations on the IGI's authority to prosecute criminal cases, emphasising the separation of powers and the role of other entities such as the National Prosecuting Authority.

Regarding coordination within intelligence services, Mr Mjenxane explained that while regulations facilitate coordination, compelling one state organ to stop another could disrupt the collaborative nature envisaged in government operations.

Regarding interactions with legal advisors, Mr Mjenxane clarified that the Committee receives legal advice primarily from parliamentary legal services to maintain separation of powers. He emphasised that advice from the Department and public participation responses are informative but not binding on the Committee's decision-making process.

Mr Mjenxane addressed the threshold for public participation, emphasising that while the views of the public inform the Committee's deliberations, they are not binding as only Parliament can make laws. He underscored the Committee's responsibility to consider public views but clarified that non-adoption of certain views does not invalidate legislation.

Mr Mjenxane concluded by affirming that the inputs provided were intended to assist the Committee in its deliberations. He highlighted the procedural stage, where the Committee must deliberate on the issues raised and decide on the next steps. He highlighted the importance of empowering the Committee for the upcoming proceedings. He expressed gratitude and invited reminders if any points were inadvertently overlooked.

The Chairperson sought confirmation from the Committee secretary regarding the procedural implications if deliberations were deferred to the following day. After receiving confirmation of her presence, the Chairperson continued, stating that he was raising the issue in light of the Minister's remarks concerning potential movement based on legal advice. He emphasised the importance of retaining the progress made thus far, noting that the majority of issues showed convergence. The Chairperson underscored the significance of this process for the current administration, seeking clarification before handing over to the Minister.

The Committee Secretary clarified the procedural steps following the day's deliberations. She explained that if the Committee concluded its proceedings for the day, the Bill would be forwarded with a C-list prepared by the legal advisor. This list would then be processed by the service provider so that the Committee could scrutinise clause by clause the following day. However, she expressed uncertainty about the feasibility of reconvening for further deliberations. She indicated that the Committee would be guided by the Chairperson and the Members in this regard. Additionally, she highlighted that if there were further amendments required, the Bill would need to be referred back to the Assembly for these adjustments. She emphasised the importance of adhering to procedural requirements. If the Committee deemed no major amendments necessary, it could proceed with its process, aiming to adopt the report for tabling to the House on Wednesday, 15 May 2024, morning.

The Minister clarified that she sought clarity regarding the Committee's procedures but found the explanation from the Committee secretary insufficient. She expressed a desire to engage directly with the state law advisors since they had not interacted with her team during discussions with the parliamentary legal advisors.

She highlighted three main issues of contention: the evaluation committee, the frequency of meetings between the Committee and the President, and the appointment of the Deputy Inspector General of Intelligence (IGI). On the issue of the Deputy IGI, she emphasised the technical complexities, suggesting that the National Assembly (NA) might face challenges in consulting adequately on this matter. Similarly, she argued against legislating the frequency of meetings with the President, citing existing provisions and expressing concerns about legislating based on personality issues.

Regarding the evaluation committee, she asserted that it was an outdated mechanism that weakened oversight responsibilities. She concluded by stating that her team could engage further with the legal advisors but ultimately deferred to the Committee's decision-making process, respecting the advisory role of the parliamentary legal advisors.

Ms Labuschagne proposed a focused approach to amending the Bill, considering its history, the input from various committees (including ad hoc committees), and the importance of legislative review. She suggested that the Committee might consider amending the Bill only regarding the Deputy Chairperson of the Joint Standing Committee on Intelligence. She acknowledged the Minister's concerns regarding the Deputy Inspector General (IG) and proposed not proceeding with amendments on the other issues raised by the Minister. Ms Labuschagne's proposal aimed to streamline the process by focusing on a single amendment. She then deferred to the Chairperson to facilitate further discussion and decision-making by the Committee.

The Chairperson expressed gratitude and suggested that additional elements be included in the proposal. He emphasised the need to address the issue of reporting, indicating that both legal advice and departmental input presented no concerns. He anticipated that an amendment would be made regarding reporting, stating that the committees would need to provide a report to Parliament within five months of their first appointment and eight months after the 31st. He noted a convergence on reporting issues and suggested incorporating amendments if Members agreed, which would simplify matters for both the Committee and future proceedings.

Mr Dodovu thanked the Chairperson and expressed satisfaction that the issues at hand had been significantly narrowed down to minor, surmountable differences. He highlighted the urgency of the matter and proposed that the legal representatives organise the Bill. He suggested discussing and finalising the outstanding issues that afternoon to expedite the process. He acknowledged that, despite a few differences, there was a fundamental agreement and requested permission to address specific issues.

The Chairperson clarified that the team would guide them and stated that the only changes being made to the version received from the National Assembly concerned the deputy chairperson of the President and the reporting timeline. He confirmed that all other oversight issues were referred back to the Joint Standing Committee for consideration in the seventh administration.

The Chairperson then asked if Members agreed to finalise and vote on the matter so that it could become a decision of the Committee. He suggested that those in favour use the "raise your hand" option.

In the vote, seven hands were raised in support.

The Chairperson concluded by stating that the Committee agreed there would be no changes to the Bill received from the National Assembly, except for the effective changes regarding the deputy chairperson and the reporting timeline. He directed the legal team and the state law advisors to prepare the C-list for consideration the next day.

Mr Mjenxane acknowledged the Committee's directions on crafting the Bill, noting that they would develop a series addressing the Deputy Chairperson of the IGI of the Joint Standing Committee on Intelligence and the aligned reporting timeline for the JSCI. He thanked the Chairperson.

The Committee Secretariat reminded Members that there was nothing else on the agenda except to note that the Committee would meet again at 2:00 PM the following day to consider the C-list.

The Chairperson thanked the Members, the Minister and her team, and their own team. He expressed gratitude for the manner in which the meeting proceeded, highlighting the enlightening and informative discussions that enhanced understanding of the intelligence services and the associated legalities. He then requested the Committee Secretariat to present the report for adoption.

The Committee Secretariat confirmed that they needed to adopt the public participation report.

Adoption of the Public Participation Report

Ms Shaikh moved for the adoption and was seconded by Ms Labuschagne.

The Chairperson then stated that the report was formally adopted. https://pmg.org.za/tabled-committee-report/5848/  

He expressed gratitude, commending the skills and preparation demonstrated by everyone involved in the public hearings and workshops. He acknowledged the logistics, content, and media engagement, noting it was quite enlightening. He thanked all participants and formally closed the meeting, indicating they would reconvene the next day at 2:00 PM.

Meeting adjourned.