National Prosecuting Authority, Legal Aid Board Annual Report briefings

Share this page:

Meeting Summary

A summary of this committee meeting is not yet available.

Meeting report

SELECT COMMITTEE ON SAFETY AND SECURITY

SAFETY AND SECURITY SELECT COMMITTEE
30 May 2007
NATIONAL PROSECUTING AUTHORITY, LEGAL AID BOARD ANNUAL REPORT BRIEFINGS


Chairperson:  Kgoshi L Mokoena (ANC, Limpopo)

Document handed out:
National Prosecuting Authority Presentation CEO Report
Seizing Criminal Assets to Fight Crime
Directorate of Special Operations presentation
Priority Crimes Litigation Unit Report Period 2006 - 2007
National Prosecuting Services (NPS) Report presentation
Legal Aid Board Annual Report 2005/06 and 2006/07 presentation
Legal Aid Board Strategic Overview 2006 – 2009

SUMMARY

The National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) and its individual units, whose work was detailed in the briefing, reported an overall good performance for the year.  It had received an unqualified audit report. Details were given on the type of work being undertaken and the case loads and other statistics. Challenges included the high vacancy rate, which had an adverse effect on the caseload. The discrepancy in magistrates' and prosecutors' salaries was exacerbating the problem since prosecutors would apply for magisterial posts. The allegations of leaks of information to the media had been investigated, and measures had been taken. Although the NPA accepted criticism where it was due, and in fact actively engaged with stakeholders to try to improve matters, there was a problem where some high-ranking officials seemed determined to undermine the integrity of the NPA. Members raised numerous questions, some of which would have to be answered in writing. Particular issues included the problems with forensic investigations, training, cases dragging on for over two years, the apparent drop in the intelligence capacity in the NPA, the shortage of prosecutors, children under 18 being detained while awaiting trial, the salary gap, the case management system, lack of skills in new university graduates, the need for NPA to undertake specified training, relationships between prosecutors and investigating officers, backlogs, alleged publicity in arrests by the Scorpions and lack of response from that unit. Further questions were asked on smuggling syndicates across the continent, vetting of employees, forfeiture of the proceeds of crime, and the spending on high profile cases.

The Legal Aid Board noted that its mandate required it to examine the whole justice sector, growth of police investigating numbers, expansion of courts, and poverty levels, all of which affected its work. The key challenge was to deliver quality service and promote the constitutional right to justice, as well as being accessible. It employed more than 1400 lawyers, and had to find ways to capacitate them, determine their competencies and compensate them. It also must develop its own institutional capacity. It had had unqualified reports for five years and had well-operational systems for processing payments, salaries, producing information and giving timely and effective services. Although about half its staff component were candidate attorneys there were excellent supervisory ratios, the lawyers were trained and experienced and there was coverage in all courts. The Board also experienced problems in having their lawyers move to magisterial positions. A challenge was that the Legal Aid Guide had not been updated since 2002. The total budget of R5674 million was inadequate. Questions by Members included the numbers of referrals, numbers of finalised cases, appointment of senior litigators, how the Board was coping with the Equity Act, ways in which the case backlogs could be eased, remuneration issues, overworked staff,
and cases being withdrawn only at late stages.

MINUTES
Introductory remarks
The Chairperson informed the Committee that the National Prosecuting Authority were informed of the invitation to brief the Committee only on Monday, and in view of the shortage of time would be happy to allow written answers to any questions or the scheduling of another meeting.

National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) Briefing
Adv Vusi Pikoli, National Director, Public Prosecutions, National Prosecuting Authority, said that many believed that the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) were the gems of the justice system, but some also regarded it as a scourge.  The NPA had tolerated unfair criticism numerous times, but there were also those in a high position who saw fit to undermine the democratic institutions of the State. 

NPA had formalised the 2020 Strategy, focusing on governance, delivery and resources.  This would enable NPA to do their work more effectively and efficiently. The NPA had decided to undertake an overhaul of their performance management to deal with individual performance. They had conducted reviews of the business units to ensure alignment in terms of the annual plans for each unit has as also that they were consistent.

The budget of the NPA was R1.8 billion and it was noted that it enough, although more could be done with a bigger budget. The largest unit was the National Prosecuting Services, which took up the bulk of the budget. Corporate Services received R239 million, Directorate of Special Operation received R271million, Witness Protection received R97million, Asset Forfeiture Unit received R 52 million, Priority Crimes Litigation Unit received R 9million, Sexual Offences and Community Affairs received R25million, and Specialised Commercial Crimes Unit received R65million.

The National Prosecuting Services (NPS) had not had a good year in the validation of cases. There was a high vacancy rate of 24% because it tended to make internal promotions, which constituted 80% of new appointments.  This created a problem in terms of having a sufficient number of prosecutors.  The NPS had a high turnover rate as many of the prosecutors left to go to the bench - and 112 had been so lost through appointments to the bench. Wide discrepancy in salaries between magistrates and prosecutors were not helping. If the Moseneke Commission’s proposal was accepted the salary gap between the senior prosecutors and magistrates would be R150 000.  This would adversely affect the NPA. Increasing numbers of personnel within SAPS, with current figures at 163 000 compared to the 2 000 prosecutors had also affected NPS as this had overburdened the  caseload. There were 169 SAPS stations identified as priority. Currently there were1 803 people in custody awaiting trial for more than 2 years, 224 in high court awaiting trial for more than two years, 1227 detainees awaiting trial in the regional courts, 331 awaiting trial in the district courts and 21 in the lower courts.

A widely spread problem was that the accused persons would change lawyers mid way through their trial, and the new lawyer needed time to properly prepare for the case. Another problem were those who escaped from custody or did not turn up in Court. This raised the question of warrants and in 2006, 17 000 warrants had to be issued.  On average 15 000 warrants were issued, all creating backlog. Problems were experienced with the private legal profession who at times did not turn up for court, but this extended also to both magistrates and prosecutors. NPS would take disciplinary action where it could.

A further problem was the long period of time to do investigations by forensic laboratories, particularly for
Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) analysis. NPS had worked on guidelines to deal with these matters.  With regard to juveniles, NPS had a Bill before the parliament for the past three to four years and if it were to be passed it would alleviate many of the problems. Children had to be dealt with in a special way. It was also noted that this was the only Bill that had been properly costed at the onset. The statistics were given by province for juveniles of
18 years and under. In Kwazulu Natal there were 276 children, in Gauteng 183 children,  in Limpopo, Mpumalanga and North West combined 30 children, Northern Cape and Free state combined 137 children, in Western Cape 172 combined and the Eastern Cape 257 children.

The time taken for finalisation of matters was tabled. On average this would take five months from the district court to the regional court.  From the regional court to the disposal of the matter would be a further average of eleven months. In 2005 the complete process was averaging twenty months. This resulted in backlogs, especially because of the increasing number of new cases. Despite these obstacles NPS had managed to attain an average of 85% conviction rate in the lower courts, and in the district court had a conviction rate of 87%. In the regional court it had managed to exceed the 70% mark, and the rate in the high Court was also good. The methods subscribed to the United Nations guidelines and all information would be shared with defence Counsel.

The Directorate of Special Operations (DSO), despite all its problems, was able to maintain high levels of performance. This unit dealt with the top end of the crime market. It had recently appointed a Chief Financial Officer, and the finances of the DSO and NPA were being split.  There were just over 500 staff in DSO and the workload was quite over bearing.  There had been accusations of leaks of information to the media and DSO had worked hard to find a way to prevent the leaking, including carrying out random lie detector tests.  It should be noted that the DSO were not the only people with information, but they had been landed with the accusations, and this was unfortunate as it tended to undermine their work.

The Asset Forfeiture Unit (AFU) had done good work of the past eight years of its existence.  The unit had been able to freeze more than R400 million of assets. There had been 250 cases to the value of R1 billion,  all of which had been initiated by the AFU. Of the 32 cases that it had prosecuted the unit had won 26 cases.

The Specialised Commercial Crimes Unit (SCCU) was increasing.  The unit had done well with a conviction rate of 95.92%. It would be opening a court in Bellville. It had achieved a proper coordination of law enforcement.  Section 105A had assisted the SCCU in its impressive conviction rate, as the accused could enter into plea bargains, but it was stressed that this was not a lesser option, as they carried strict sentences. A number of cases concluded with a plea bargain.

The Priority Crimes Litigation Unit (PCLU) had seized on an international syndicate involved in trying to obtain nuclear warheads, and this trial was starting on 31 July 2007.  The PCLU were also involved in the prosecution of mercenaries and outstanding Truth and Reconciliation Commission matters, in which there were people who were denied amnesty.

The Sexual Offences and Community Affairs (SOCA) worked closely with the sexual offences courts. This unit placed victims at the centre of the legal system.

The Witness Protection Unit (WPU) had not lost or had any witnesses threatened since appointment of the new director. It had managed to create a synergy between the WPU and law enforcement and had been more effective.

Corporate Services wanted to turn six months of training to a twelve months learnership. It was realised that there was to little time for the trainees to go through such a rigorous training. It was decided that they should target universities for recruitment.

In conclusion, Adv Pikoli said that every year since 2005 NPA had organised a stakeholders’ conference so that NPA could interact and receive feedback.  Such unity would go far to breaking the stranglehold of crime.

Discussion
Mr M Mzizi (IFP, Gauteng) realised that DNA tests could not be decentralised and that NPS would have to tackle the problem head on.  He raised the issue that some investigating officers were overrun with dockets.

Adv Pikoli mentioned the overall court performance and stressed that NPS had worked closely with the police and a number of role players who were involved in the courts system. Part of the reason that the Department of Justice (DOJ) had started an integrated case flow system was to ensure that case management could be improved and that all role players coordinated their roles correctly.  It was the uneven application of they system that had presented a problem.

Mr A Moseki (ANC, North West) broached the topic of forensics and the improved technology, and asked why it was so difficult for the unit to improve its technology and deal with the challenges that confronted them and impacted negatively on their caseload.

Adv Pikoli informed the Committee that the Eastern Cape and Western Cape were serviced from one centre in Cape Town. The Director of Public Prosecutions in the Eastern Cape had entered into negotiations with the SAPS to add another laboratory in Port Elizabeth for the Eastern Cape.

Mr Mzizi said with regard to the leaked information that there were a number of individuals whom the media knew were good sources of information and that he sympathised with  the unit.

Kgoshi Mokoena said that the leaking of information could be linked to the fact that the persons had received remuneration for their information.

Mr Mzizi believed that the Committee needed to be properly informed in order to help.  He questioned the Mauritius investigation with regard to the Jacob Zuma trial and asked what had happened.

Adv Leonard McCarthy (Head: DSO) could not  state anything about the Mauritius documents because it would be unethical.

Dr F van Heerden (FF Plus, Free State) raised issues in the Free State.  He said that at present the Deputy Director Public Prosecutions had been trying to prosecute a case for fifteen months, and the Director Mr Ferreira had a charge of assault laid against him that had dragged on for a while.  He had seen the medical report of the alleged victim and wanted to know what was the position and when was the case going to be finalised.

Mr Willie Hofmeyr (Head: AFU) said that he and the Director-General of Justice were assigned to investigate the matter, which had unfortunately dragged on because the evidence was not as good as expected.  They would put a more detailed report in writing.

Mr D Worth (DA, Free State) noticed that some of their cases were listed in the presentation. He noted that the Rautenbach issue was problematic as the person involved was in the Democratic Republic of Congo and not being prosecuted locally. He asked the situation in the case.

Adv McCarthy responded that DSO had brought an application for the extradition of Mr Rautenbach. It was worrying that he could be sitting outside the country, whilst still litigating  on several different issues and managing to win a few.

Mr Mzizi was of the opinion that the units should remain singular and distinct and not merge with any other organisation or unit.
 
Mr S Shiceka (ANC, Gauteng) said that the NPA had set a very high standard and had managed to instil fear onto potential criminals.

Mr Moseki felt that there was a need to defend these institutions and protect the good work.

Adv Pikoli said that he would accept criticism where due, but that certain attacks went too far and attacked the very integrity of the institution. He stated that he would get back to the Committee in writing on some questions.

Mr Mzizi mentioned the statistics on training specifically in Gauteng and asked why cases were dragging on for longer than two years.

Mr Mzizi asked about children under the age of 18 years old, specifically in Gauteng, and whether the NPA should not be approaching the Department of Social Welfare.

Mr Mzizi made reference to the extensive intelligence capacity that had existed in the apartheid era and questioned whether the NPA now were utilising their capacity to the fullest.

Dr Van Heerden added that he had raised this topic numerous times and mentioned that police were not availing themselves of the procedures to grant police bail.

Mr Worth, in regard to bail applications, mentioned that magistrates were giving bail without having sufficient reason for doing so. He believed more vigorous conditions should apply before granting bail applications.

Dr van Heerden mentioned that the Moseneke Commission could make things difficult for the unit.

Mr Worth agreed that shortage of efficient prosecutors had to do with the fact that they were being lured to the magistrate’s offices and that something should be done about that.

Dr van Heerden was concerned about the uncertainty under which the DSO was working, noted that in the presentation the words ‘trying conditions’ were used and asked exactly what conditions those were. He also voiced his concern over the NPA's mention of lack of support from members of certain organisations.

Dr van Heerden also had experienced the fact that at certain courts prosecutors did not have proper access to telephone facilities and wanted to know if there were plans to correct this situation.

Dr van Heerden understood that it was difficult to fill the vacancies because of the procedure, but asked whether the procedures could not be expedited.

Mr J  Le Roux (DA, Eastern Cape) mentioned the shortage of prosecutors, and said that in the private sector the problem would have been solved long ago. He asked why it was still a problem for the NPA.

Mr Moseki requested if there were other incentives as part of their retention strategy to prohibit losing expertise.

Kgoshi Mokoena ascertained that with regard to the vacancies issue a definitive action should be taken. 

Ms Marion Sparg (Chief Executive Officer: NPA) viewed the vacancy issue as the biggest challenge.  The vacancy rates of 26% seemed too high but many of the posts were new posts that were created late last year, for which the funds only came through at the beginning of this financial year.  Many of the appointments had been fast-tracked, but these were largely internal appointments.  NPS had managed to find a way to speed up the process but interviewing of the candidates was extending the process.  Ultimately it came down to capacity issues, because the people doing the essential work in the NPS also had to find time somewhere to sit on interviews.  NPS had decided on advertising a certain amount of positions and then interviewing and choosing a pool list of candidates, so that when a position became available the process would not take so long.  They would, however, send a detailed report to the Committee on the issue.

Mr Shiceka was frustrated with the gap between the salaries of magistrates and prosecutors and felt that, because it affected all relevant personnel, it should be addressed in a comprehensive manner.  A long term solution  would be much better.

Kgoshi Mokoena was concerned by the fact that prosecutors were leaving to be magistrates, because the Committee, in doing oversight duties, always heard that there were inexperienced prosecutors on cases.

Mr Le Roux said that if the public was in contempt of court they were seriously fined, and asked why the same discipline was not being applied to legal officials.

Mr Rodney De Kock (Director Public Prosecutor: NPA)  moved on to the topic of discipline in courts and said that the presiding officer now took responsibility for the discipline of all officials who came to court. Case flow management systems were designed and applied by the Justice Department through a case flow committee at both local and provincial level. The judiciary was made well aware that they needed to take charge of the courts. They were confident that with time they would be able to restore the kind of discipline required at the court, which was at the heart of dealing with cases speedily at court.

Mr Le Roux did not hear anything about whistle-blowers and wanted to know if enough was being done about the matter.
 
Mr Le Roux was also very disturbed about reports that graduates with LLB degrees were unable to show the basic required skills and asked if the unit was going to do anything about that matter.
 
Mr Worth detected that the unit had been put on to cases like investigating emails when he felt it was more appropriate for them to be detailed to investigate the kind of information being released in the  media regarding the arms deal. He wanted to know why NPA were not dealing with it.

Adv McCarthy replied to the arms investigation question by commenting that the DSO had never investigated anyone based on speculation in the newspapers.  If they were approached on the matter they would go through the proper channels.

Mr Shiceka believed that the Committee needed more time to do justice to the documents that were given.

Mr Shiceka suggested that the NPA should develop courses specifically designed for prosecutors,and asked why was this not done before.  The NPA should not wait to be approached but should be proactive as this would give them a pool of people to choose from. 
Mr Shiceka mentioned the case recently lost by the AFU, concerning wrongly confiscated taxis that were owned by someone else. He felt this was embarrassing and wanted to know the details of this case.

Mr Hofmeyr replied  that it was a litigation issue and had nothing to do with the ownership of the taxis.

Mr Shiceka mentioned that the relationship between the prosecutors and the investigating officers was not strong because there was usually a considerable amount of tension between them, and such lack of coordination was often the cause of cases being lost.  He then asked if NPA had put a policy in place to strengthen the relationship between the prosecutors and the investigating officers. 
 
Mr De Kock gave a brief description on the current initiative within the NPA which was to ensure that prosecutors and investigators engaged early on in the case. This was called the Prosecutor Guided Project, and was at a very advanced stage.

Mr Moseki raised the topic of backlog and said different ideas seemed to be needed. He asked what ideas had been suggested.

Mr Shiceka was pleased that the NPA had scaled down the publicity on the arrests. He asked if it was true that the Mayor of Mtimkulu, Mr Machoba, had heard that the Scorpions were about to arrest him, and this was done allegedly outside before media cameras. If this was true then it was inappropriate.

Mr L Fielding (DA, Northern Cape) said that he often reported cases to the Scorpions in the Namaqualand area.  The problem he had experienced was that he had received no feedback on the progress of those cases, which had totalled to over 200 since 2004. This worried him and he requested that the NPA look into the situation.

Mr McCarthy was concerned about the arrest of the mayor and the cases in Namaqualand and promised he would look into the matters.

Kgoshi Mokoena indicated that there was a chain of syndicates who worked along all the borders in the continent. It would be arranged that at each check point the truck that carried illegal goods was searched and yet nothing would be found.  It seemed that technology advanced yet people did not as he believed that South Africa still checked the trucks manually as opposed to using a scanner. He would like to know if the NPA had any plans or suggestions of a solution for this problem.

Mr McCarthy said DSO had considered the challenge of breaking the cycle of corrupt smuggling across the borders and would put their suggestions in writing to the Committee.

Kgoshi Mokoena referred to Grasskop in Mpumalanga, where a police officer had allegedly connived with the prosecutor.  He requested a progress report on the situation.

Kgoshi Mokoena mentioned a debate, in KZN, between the police and justice department where the police argued for immediate arrest and later investigation, whereas the department believed there should first be a thorough investigation before arrests were made. He wanted the NPA to give its view.

Kgoshi Mokoena mentioned the qualified report that the Department of Justice received from the Auditor-General. NPA had not contributed to this situation. He asked what they believed   should be done to aid the Department in the situation as it was an embarrassing amount of money involved.

Kgoshi Mokoena touched on the topic of corruption and assumed that when the NPA employed anyone for any one of the units, the future employees were vetted.  It was discouraging to see the people who had gained the public's confidence being arrested for fraud. He wanted to know what measures were put in place to prevent the hiring of such persons as it tarnished the image of the units.

Kgoshi Mokoena wondered about the proceeds of crime that were forfeited and how had the country benefited from the money.

Mr Hofmeyr responded that the law provided that where there was a direct victim the funds should go to the victim.  In many cases the direct victim was government, and here the money should be used to fight or bolster crime, or assist organisations that help victims. The unit had dealt with cases where the direct victims were members of the public as well.

Kgoshi Mokoena asked how often were investigators trained.

Kgoshi Mokoena remarked that the Committee had previously heard a complaint that once cases had been completed those under witness protection were simply left to fend for themselves.  He mentioned that this left a bad impression and asked about the situation.

Kgoshi Mokoena asked what other serious challenges had faced NPA, as the Committee would want to know how to improve the situation. 

Mr Shiceka asked about the Khampepe Commission recommendations and how would they affect the unit.

Mr McCarthy said that they would enhance the performance of the DSO.  He also remarked on the performance of the DSO and said that with the exception of two goals and all other objectives had been achieved.

Kgoshi Mokoena said he wanted to know how much was spent on high profile cases, but that this answer, and any questions not already answered during the interaction, could be put in writing.

Adv Pikoli thanked the Committee for the opportunity to interact. 

Legal Aid Board Annual Reports 2005/06 and 2006/07 Presented by Judge Dunstan Mlambo
Judge Dunstan Mlambo, Chairperson, Legal Aid Board, stated that the mandate of the Legal Aid Board (LAB) was derived from the Constitution and the Legal Aid Act. When the LAB crafted its three-year 2006 to 2009 strategic plan it had conducted a broad overview of the situation in South Africa. It looked at the context of the entire Justice sector, internal factors within the LAB which included the growth in police number and activities, expansion in the Department of Justice in terms of more courts, requiring more LAB employees and the poverty levels in South Africa. Poverty affected LAB as it catered for all those who could not afford legal representation. It also looked at prison overcrowding and the shrinking amount of legal non-government organisations.  Pre-1994 the legal NGO’s played an integral role, but post 1994 their funding was cut and their cases were referred to the LAB.

There were three main elements to the strategy plan.  The key challenge was to deliver quality service and promote the constitutional right to justice, as well as being accessible. There were 58 justice centres, both urban and rural, and satellite stations were also set up, and a high court unit.  It was believed that there should be timely representation and people should not have to languish in jail for a long period before being provided with legal representation

The LAB was to develop and maintain its human capital to support the delivery of quality legal services.  It employed in excess of 1400 lawyers . It had to find ways to capacitate them, thus had to determine what competencies were required from the lawyers, and, more importantly, t how appropriately the lawyers were being compensated.

The LAB had to develop and maintain the institutional capacity to support the delivery of quality legal service. The LAB had had unqualified audit reports for the last five years. It had managed to maintain efficient processes, payment of salaries, produce accurate reliable service, and produce relevant and timeous information. Furthermore, since LAB believed that provision of service was a key element, the Board had introduced various interventions to improve the quality of the service.  These included supervisory capacity, where senior lawyers with no case loads would supervise the junior lawyers with their case loads, enhanced training and development programmes which supported the legal staff, supervisory staff and the management components of justice centres.  LAB ensured that there were improved resources in terms of internet libraries for access by legal staff.  It  had a supervisory capacity in the justice centre to monitor these services.  Under the regional executive’s guidance LAB also conducted quarterly quality audit reviews, which confirmed the good service being rendered by its lawyers, along with positive feedback to this effect from the presiding officers, who commented in particular that the LAB lawyers were always on time and had respect for the court.

Judge Mlambo reported that the candidate attorneys made up 45% of the total component of the LAB staff.  The ratio of candidate attorneys to senior supervisors was 4 to1. The LAB was aware of the constant criticism that they employed inexperienced lawyers to do the work, but this was not justified as the admission requirement for LAB was eight years experience. There was also a perception that the LAB lawyers colluded with prosecutors and magistrates. LAB undertook the bulk of criminal defence in the country, and could assure the Committee that there was no collusion, and that although their lawyers, like those in private practice, could advise the client they had to accept final instructions from the client. 

The Chairperson indicated that many of the challenges faced were sectorial, in terms of the migration of lawyers to magistrate’s offices. There were also major problems in not having proper alignment. The Legal Aid Guide was to be brought to Parliament to be ratified each year and updated, as stipulated by the Constitution. Unfortunately the last time it was ratified was 2002. The LAB could not function properly without an updated Legal Aid Guide. 

Ms Vidhu Vedalankar, Chief Executive Officer, Legal Aid Board took over the presentation, noting that LAB had now achieved coverage of all legal courts, but that the ratio of practitioners to courts was only at one per court. In 2006 there was a total of 358 000 assisted matters, which was a 5% increase. The major focus was on the client and ensuring that the Board could respond to client needs. It had managed to increase recruitment levels.

The LAB was accused of undue delays, and therefore had moved to increasing the number of practitioners for first appearances.  In terms of government grants the institution sat outside of government, and had to be seen as a separate entity.  The total budget was R574million, which was one third of what the NPA received, and was not adequate.

Discussion
Mr Le Roux commented that in the Eastern Cape, particularly the Port Elizabeth and Uitenhage areas, the LAB was doing a fantastic job

Dr van Heerden asked if the LAB appointed senior litigators.

Mr Worth asked how many people were referred to other areas when approaching the LAB.
 
Mr Worth queried whether it was correct that the finalised cases were the same for both the 2005 and 2006 years. .

Mr Moseki noted that during his oversight duties he was approached with a complaint on service delivery to the effect that LAB lawyers were inexperienced, and asked how  LAB responded to such a statement.

Mr Moseki wanted the LAB to specify what the challenges were.

Mr Moseki wanted to know how the organisation dealt with the challenges represented by the Equity Act.

Mr Mzizi wanted clarification on the issue of lawyers being seen as apprentice lawyers, and he stated that LAB had to find a balance to ease the case backlog.

Mr Mzizi wanted the issue of remuneration resolved quickly, and enquired as to how quickly they could address the issue.

Mr Mzizi stated that there was not often sufficient time for plea-bargaining.

Mr Shiceka also insisted that LAB needed to push the issue of salaries. There was a perception being created that the best lawyers would leave government and that the private sector was better.

Mr Shiceka was of the opinion the LAB must be involved in a campaign of changing the perception of their profession and said that it was necessary to obtain a view independent from the government.

Mr Shiceka said that officials were overworked and this caused a lapse in concentration, which then caused delays and administrative errors.

Mr Shiceka encouraged a spirit of visiting of prisons and cells, so that staff could get used to the environment and familiarising themselves with the conditions. Several people were not aware of the conditions in jails.

Judge Mlambo noted the conditions at prisons such as Chatsworth and Westville and noted that he would check them again. 

Kgoshi Mokoena commented that the over-bookings and withdrawals were becoming out of hand, and had to be seen to.

Mr Worth assumed that the LAB focused on criminal and not civil cases. He wanted to know long the withdrawn cases took to go through the system before they were removed and if they could not be negotiated on at a much earlier stage.

Judge Mlambo commented that LAB would often not cause the withdrawal of cases, but this was an important and pertinent point that needed to be highlighted in the presentation.

Judge Mlambo said that unfortunately the perceptions of prisoners were often skewed against the LAB,  as if an accused was convicted he maintained that the lawyer had acted badly. Therefore it was necessary to be somewhat cautious in accepting perceptions at face value. However, he valued and respected the view of the Committee.

Judge Mlambo said that the location of courts in rural areas were an unfortunate consequence of apartheid.  LAB had to be close to the courts and they had had to relocate justice centres.

Mr Mzizi concluded that the LAB was achieving well and needed to continue doing its best.

The meeting was adjourned

Audio

No related

Documents

No related documents

Present

  • 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: