Discussion and voting

SUMMARY
Chairperson Mr de Lange drew the members' attention to an amendment made to the definition under Section 1(b) by inclusion of the words "at any time before or after the commencement of this Act". A lengthy discussion ensued amongst the members on whether the said amendment is appropriate.

The chairperson asked members to voice their feelings on the two options included in the definition which were aimed at solving the problem raised by the judge in the Basson case when he distinguished between "benefit" and "offence". Committee members gave a number of suggestions with none being agreed upon. Chairperson de Lange proposed that Mr Smit of the Drafting Team leave the meeting in order to capture what had been discussed thus far and come up with some amendments in the afternoon.

The Committee went through the rest of the Bill and, in the process, relatively few problems were raised. The meeting was adjourned.

During the afternoon session the members voted on the different options and the amendments were passed. The Committee will convene tomorrow the 31 August to pass the resolution.

Chairperson de Lange advised the members that the judgement of Judge Roux in the Basson case was still not available. He said that if the members find the amendments to be to their satisfaction, they would vote on the Bill. He further stated that the Bill would be debated on Wednesday 1 September.

When going through the Bill the chairperson noted that in Section 1(b) the words "at any time before or after the commencement of this Act" had been inserted. Committee members tried to ascertain how the judges would interpret this clause. Chairperson de Lange responded to a concern raised by Mr M Masutha (ANC) by stating that so far the judges have used the old rules of interpretation namely, the literal approach. He expanded on the matter and said that in interpreting any legislation the courts have to use the purposive approach.

The Committee agreed that Sections 3 and 12 (Sections 24A and 55 of the principal Act respectively) be drafted in a manner that does not take away the normal rules of appeal. The rest of the clauses were discussed with a few technical changes made to some.

Afternoon session:
The Chairperson informed the Committee that the IFP had delivered a document expressing their support for the proposed amendments. They however suggested that the retrospective effect of the Act apply only from five years back, meaning from January 1989. This proposal was not discussed further.

Discussion ensued on the draft amendments, in particular, Section 55. A five minutes adjournment was proposed to allow parties to decide on the wording of Section 55. After this short adjournment Ms Jana (ANC) informed the Committee that the ANC would like the drafters to research how best this Section can be phrased in future. She said however that for the time being her party agreed to take out the (a) in the Section and leave in the (b).

Each section of the Bill was voted on:

Section 1
Both the NA and the NCOP members unanimously voted in favour of this Section.

Definition of "unlawful activity"
Both NA and NCOP members unanimously voted in favour of Option 1.

Section 1(6)
Both NA and NCOP members unanimously voted in favour of Option 3.

Section 2
Both NA and NCOP members unanimously voted in favour of the word "trustee" as opposed to "executor".

Section 3
23 NA members voted in favour of Option 2 with deletion of (a) and (b). Seven NA members voted against Option 2. Seven NCOP members voted in favour of Option 2 with deletion of (a) and (b) and four NCOP members voted against Option 2. Option 2 with deletion of (a) and (b) succeeded.

Section 4
24 NA members voted in favour of Option 4. Six NA members voted against Option 4. Seven NCOP members voted in favour of Option 4 and four members voted against. Option 4 was carried.

Section 5
Twenty NA members voted in favour of Option 1 and six NA members voted against Option 1. Seven NCOP members voted in favour of Option1 and four NCOP members voted against Option 1. Option 1 was carried.

Section 6
24 NA members voted in favour of Option 1 and six members voted against Option 1. Seven NCOP members voted in favour of Option1 and four NCOP members voted against Option 1. Option 1 was carried.

Section 7
Both the NA and the NCOP members unanimously voted in favour of the amended words.

Section 8
23 NA members voted in favour of Option 6 and six NA members voted against Option 6. Seven NCOP members voted in favour of Option 6 and four NCOP members voted against Option 6. Option 6 was carried.

Section 9
All members unanimously agreed that the provisions of this clause be removed from the Act.

Sections 10 & 11
25 NA members voted in favour of these clauses. No NA member voted against, but five members abstained. Nine NCOP members voted in favour of these clauses. No NCOP member voted against, but two NCOP members abstained.

Section 12
23 NA members voted in favour of Option 1 with deletion of (a) and (b). Seven NA members voted against Option 1. Seven NCOP members voted in favour of Option 1 with deletion of (a) and (b). Four NCOP members voted against this Option. Option 1 with deletion of (a) and (b) succeeded.

Sections 14 and 15 [the Preamble, the Index and Short title]
Both the NA and the NCOP unanimously voted in favour of these as amended.

The Bill was passed unanimously.

The Committee meets on 31 August to pass the resolution.