Regulation of Interception of Communications & Provision of Communication-Related Information Amd Bill: briefing
NCOP Security and Justice
17 October 2007
Meeting Summary
A summary of this committee meeting is not yet available.
Meeting report
SECURITY AND
CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
17 October 2007
REGULATION OF INTERCEPTION OF COMMUNICATIONS & PROVISION OF
COMMUNICATION-RELATED INFORMATION AMENDMENT BILL: DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
BRIEFING
Chairperson: Kgoshi L
Mokoena (ANC, Limpopo)
Relevant Documents
Regulation of
Interception of Communication and Provision of
Communication related Information Amendment Bill [B9B-2006]
Audio
recording of meeting
SUMMARY
The Department of Justice had previously briefed the Committee on the
provisions of the Regulation of Interception of Communications and Provision of
Communication Related Information Amendment Bill (the Bill). The Bill largely
sought to amend Sections 40 and 62(6) of the principal Act, which focused on
the obligations of service providers to keep information on their clients,
which could be used in the fight against crime. The Committee was addressed by
representatives from Vodacom, MTN and Cell C, who indicated that although they
supported the aims of the Bill, there were three main problems. Firstly, the
time periods mentioned in the Bill for network operators to fulfil the
registration processes were insufficient. Secondly, they stated that there was
no need to record the MSISDN, IMEI and IMSI numbers. Thirdly the provisions in
relation to registration of foreigners wishing to have roaming access were
unworkable. They feared that the provisions would create complications for both
consumers and operators and could adversely affect tourism. The Department of
Justice noted that these concerns had previously been raised before the
Portfolio Committee. It had declined to accept the submissions in relation to
the second and third areas, and had called upon the operators to provide
updated information directly to the Committee in respect of the numbers to be
processed, which all operators had failed to do, citing instead the figures
provided in 2006 to the Committee. In the absence of further proof substantiating
the objections in regard to the time periods, the Portfolio Committee had
retained the twelve month period. A
number of questions were asked by Members around these three points, answered
by both the operators and the Department of Justice. It became clear that there
were some misunderstandings on the technical possibilities, and the Department
suggested that since the representatives attending from the operators were not
themselves technical people, it should arrange a meeting to thrash out the
technical issues and try to reach a middle ground. The Standing Committee made
the point that it was not bound by the decisions of the Portfolio Committee and
would try to achieve a compromise. The matter would be further discussed on 6
November.
MINUTES
The Chairperson noted that there had been a previous briefing by the Department
on the Regulation of Interception of Communications and Provision of
Communication Related Information Amendment Bill (the Bill). He asked the
representatives of the network operators to address the Committee on their
concerns around the Bill.
Mr Pakamile Pongwana, Managing Executive, Regulatory Affairs, Vodacom, stated
that whilst the service providers did not oppose the concept behind the Bill,
there were still three problematic areas, which had already been described to
the Portfolio Committee on Justice and Constitutional Development. . The
registration period was set at twelve months, which was too short considering
the number of pre-paid subscribers to be registered. Other issues - such as the
need for verification of ID documents, and the problems around the national
address system - would compound the difficulties. He cited the recent
experiences with the registration of driving licence, and implementation of the
Financial Intelligence Centre Act and predicted that similar problems would
occur with this legislation. The current
operators had between 35 and 38 million subscribers, of whom only about 5
million were already registered as pre-paid customers. Vodacom had undertaken a
test with its own employees, over four months, and had only managed to register
675 000, although admittedly this had not involved advertising and marketing.
This seemed to indicate that a much longer period would be needed. The Bill
provided that if subscribers were not registered within 12 months, then they
should be disconnected (except for emergency services). Perhaps inducements to
register should rather be offered. Vodacom suggested that it would be desirable
to include in the Bill a provision that an extension could be given by the
Minister, on proof of how many subscribers had already been handled, and how
many remained.
The second issue related to the requirement that in-coming visitors to the
country should have to register their phones before network roaming was
allowed. This was an unsound requirement, quite apart from the negative effect
predicted upon the tourism industry in South Africa. Roaming agreements were
not signed with individuals, but with hundreds of worldwide network operators.
A roaming facility would allow a person to choose and log on to any network
giving coverage in that area. Requiring registration would mean that the
visitor must register with three operators in South Africa. This would lead to
delays at ports of entry. No other country in the world required registration
of foreign cellphones.
The third issues concerned the requirement of registration of all three MSISDN,
IMEI and IMSI numbers. The operators believed that registration of only the
MSISDN number was sufficient as this would allow for a history to be produced
as to the numbers dialled on that number, and where it had been used, as well
as the identification of the phone handset and serial number. He indicated that
it was not only the operators who sold handsets, as these could be bought from
a number of stores and outlets. He enquired whether all stores would be
required to register the cellphone sales. There was also a possibility that
with certain technology, no SIM cards would be required.
Ms Louina Nunan, Senior Legal and Regulatory Advisor, MTN, said that a few
weeks ago she had witnessed frustration and resentment by tourists who had been
delayed at the airport and were at risk of missing part of the sporting matches
they had flown in specifically to attend. From an economic perspective, if
there were to be further delays on cellphone registration queues, this could
have an impact on the tourism industry. The operators would like to find an
efficient way to register subscribers without hindering the economy.
Ms Nadia Bulbulia. Head, Regulatory Division, Cell C, noted that the
implementation must be reasonable, practical and possible. The implementation
period of six months required to get systems in place was a technical issue,
but she pointed out that the implementation periods granted under similar
legislation usually permitted periods of eighteen months upwards. The
requirement that a tourist must register was, because it was unique to this
country, unchartered, and expectations of tourists must be considered. The
restrictions on roaming created technical problems. She urged that before
legislating, the Committee must be assured that the changes would be feasible,
so that operators, through no fault of their own, would not be forced to fall short
of requirements. Cell C had 394 agreements with other networks, which would
provide a range to be opened up. She concurred with the other operators that
this was a network-to-network agreement, which did not concern individual
subscribers, and it was not technically possible to block or allow individual
numbers in that range. A provision to force registration of individual roaming
numbers would effectively mean that there could be no roaming at all.
Mr Lawrence Bassett, Chief Director: Legislation, Department of Justice, noted
that all issues had been aired before, but notwithstanding those comments, the
National Assembly had resolved to pass the legislation. The aim of the
legislation was crime detection and prevention. If there were any loopholes it
would render the legislation meaningless. That was the reason for the roaming
restrictions, as well as for the registration of the numbers. The information
needing to be captured was used as information in the Courts. He understood
that other information could be obtained from the one MSISDN number, but noted
that this information would not include proof that the owner of the handset was
also the owner of the SIM card. The Portfolio Committee had considered exactly
these representations, but decided that the overall aim of the legislation
outweighed the objections. In respect of the time periods, the Portfolio
Committee had invited the network operators to provide information that would
justify the Committee considering a variation of the 12 months but because no
information had been forthcoming, the twelve months period was retained.
Mr Sarel Robbertse, State Law Advisor, Department of Justice, added that there
had been no response by the operators to a number of specific requests in
writing by the Portfolio Committee.
Mr Robbertse reiterated that the legislation would be worthless if there were
to be loopholes. Criminals using imported handsets and overseas SIM cards could
not be traced without the registration. There was no prescription in the Bill
as to how the registration should be done, and that was left to the operators
to decide how best to do so, and how they could best obtain the information.
The same was true of the registration process for the IMEI, IMSI and MSISDN
numbers. All were required to ensure that no cell phone or SIM card could be
used to make or receive calls until all numbers were captured. The operators
were free to devise the best system - which could be merely by the operators
making the initial call on that phone - that would capture the information.
Ms Ina Botha, State Law Advisor, Department of Justice, said that the aim was
to allow the Department and crime prevention agencies to have enough reliable
information timeously and legitimately available to detect, prevent and solve
crime. She noted that internet research suggested that prepaid roaming cards
could be purchased overseas. She understood that agreements were presently
operator-to-operator, and that information would be available from overseas
operators. However, the process of getting that information across borders
would delay and hinder law enforcement agencies, as it would involve Interpol,
consideration of privacy issues in the foreign countries.
Ms Botha pointed out that citizens of South Africa were being required to
register. There was no cogent reason why the same should not apply to visitors
to the country.
Ms Botha pointed out that there could not be direct parallels drawn with the
driving licence and financial institutions' requirements, as neither the systems
nor their problems were the same.
Discussion
The discussions by Members related to the three issues raised,
and are summarised below under those topics.
Time periods
Mr D Worth (DA, Free State) noted that when the National Assembly had
considered the matter, it had been opposed to granting a further extension of
12 months, because service providers already had had ample opportunity to
register at least two thirds of their subscribers.
Mr Pongwana responded that the Bill had appeared in its current form only in
2005/06. The first draft was released some time ago, but this had originally
required paper-based registration. After input from the operators, it was
agreed that electronic processes could be adopted. He pointed out that it was
impossible to predict what form the Bill would finally take. It would be risky
to start to register certain fields, when these might be changed. Although the
operators had tested various registration systems internally, including the
possibility of using agents, and certain devices, it had not been possible to
pre-empt what would be the final requirements.
Ms Bulbulia added that all providers had been putting the preliminary systems
in place, employing staff, and getting registration terminals. She agreed that
it was only within the last year that the requirements of operators had been
more clearly stated, and she believed that their efforts to date must be
recognised.
Mr A Moseki (ANC, North West) noted the complaints in regard to insufficient
time, and mentioned that consumers in South Africa were not always swift to
respond to registration requirements. He asked what alternative proposals the
service providers would make.
Mr Pongwana proposed that the period should range from 18 months to 36 months,
with a demonstration of progress made during the period, and that the relevant
Minister be given a discretion to determine whether there needed to be extension . Review on a six-monthly basis would ensure that
the providers would implement as fast as possible. Taking into account the
broader objectives of the country, the suggestion to cut off services to
subscribers that were not registered after 12 months was not acceptable. He
suggested that a phased approach could perhaps be introduced - such as the
operators warning people that unless they registered within a warned period,
their outgoing calls could be blocked, then perhaps if they did not register
again, then only emergency calls could be allowed.
Ms Nunan added that failure to register within 12 months might have limitations
on the access of foreign students.
Ms Botha reiterated that the Portfolio Committee had called for data, and
specified that it could be provided in confidence, to the Committee. The
Committee had not been satisfied as to how many of the 34-million SIM-cards
were in fact dormant, or what was the active number of cards requiring
registration. Because the information was not provided, the Portfolio Committee
was unable to amend the period. Besides that, the Portfolio Committee believed
that the time requirement should be set by parliament, and not by the
executive. Insofar as the suggestion to "soft-lock" by blocking
certain access was concerned, she was not sure that it should be up to the
operators to soft-lock or regulate the industry.
In response to the soft-locking, Mr Pongwana noted that network operators were
permitted to soft-lock
phones, and this was normally done to limit a child's phone
calls, or to limit spending on a particular number per month.
Ms Nunan wished to stress that the information on the number of subscribers and
the proposed registration points was provided on 14 November 2005 to the Department of
Justice, in hard copy.
Vodacom said that he could also cite examples of a letter submitted to this
Committee the day before the National Assembly deliberations, which had been
acknowledged as received only three days after the debate. Vodacom could give
copies of all documents sent on the different issues. There was a need to have
someone present who had understood what had happened
Requirements for registration of roaming phones
Mr Moseki noted the service providers' concerns around registration of
tourists. He asked what experiences there had been leading to the Department's
proposals, and what gaps these intending to address.
Mr Pongwana stated that the main concerns revolved around these technical
issues. A foreign traveller to South African, wishing to be contactable, would
ask for activation of roaming. On arriving in the country, his phone would
automatically switch over to roaming. However, this was not an individual
contract with a South African operator. It was a wholesale service that applied
between South African and foreign network operators. It was from a practical
point of view not possible to block an individual from the roaming facility if
he had not registered. South Africa should be looking to other countries that
had registration requirements and note that no restrictions had been placed on
foreign roaming, precisely because technically it was not a sound system to
implement. This problem was quite apart from the problem of delay.
Ms Botha said that although information on roaming phones was to be captured,
there were no specifications as to how this must be done. She noted that this
Committee would have to decide if there had been sufficient proof that there
was no practical and affordable way to register foreigners. She suggested that
if there were agreements with hundreds of cellphone operators there should
surely be the possibility of coming up with an individual roaming registration
process. It was not expected, even in respect of South African citizens, that
the registrations must be done directly by the operators; they would be
permitted to use agents. Most of the details of those requesting roaming
would already be on file in the foreign country and could surely be conveyed to
the South African operators, ready for access by law enforcement agencies.
Mr Pongwana wished to correct any misperception that there was such a thing as
"pre-paid roaming". Roaming facilities were only available for
persons who had a contract with a network, so that costs could be recovered.
The originating network would have the details of that person. In practice, the
requirement of registration would not close the loopholes, and he doubted
whether closing every loophole was ever possible. Criminals intending to commit
a crime in a country would in reality enter the country, get a false ID, buy 20
phones, use them once and dispose of them. In the criminal world mobile phones
were referred to as "throwaways". Although it was already possible to
track patterns of calling and note where the phones were used, this was of
little practical use when the crime had been committed and the phone disposed
of. This information and data had been
provided to both the Departments of Justice and Communications. The provisions of the
Bill were not implementable from a practical point of view and any attempts to
close loopholes must be practical.
Mr Pongwana noted that there was an Office of interception that could get Court
orders to intercept calls where it was suspected that the phones were being
used for criminal purposes. In addition, a situation might arise where the
South African Police Services (SAPS) would ask for and obtain assistance from
the operators in obtaining details of a particular phone. He suggested that a
better way to address the loopholes was to be found by discussion with SAPS and
the operators, and that loopholes could be closed by mechanisms other than
legislation - such as tracking with a warrant.
Ms Bulbulia agreed that there was a need for meeting of minds on practical
considerations. The operators took the matters very seriously, and were
prepared to make further input.
Mr J Le Roux (DA, Eastern Cape) noted that the whole world had a problem with
crime. He asked why only South Africa had the provision for roaming
registration.
Dr F van Heerden (FFP, Free State) said that there were clearly certain
mechanisms available to close the loopholes, and suggested that the Department
must have further discussions with the network operators, as their concerns
appeared to be valid. This was a complex issue requiring practical solutions.
Mr Pongwana said that there was a need for a decision in principle whether to
permit roaming. He reiterated that it was not practically possible to block
access for one individual. The revised Section 40(1) provided that the operators
could not activate a SIM card or activate a cellphone unless details were
registered. However, for roaming facilities, this was done overseas and thee would be automatic service from country to country
based on the wholesale arrangements.
Mr Robbertse noted that the legislation was worded "may not allow a
foreign user" - and so a foreigner must be locked out until there was
compliance with the Act. Allowing foreign phones to be used would equate to
allowing a customer in South Africa to use his phone without registering.
Mr Pongwana reiterated that roaming could only be done by contract customers.
No network in the world allowed a person to buy a SIM card, load air time and
make roaming calls. If parliament was
insistent on requiring blocking of roaming for any reason, then it would
effectively be cutting out all roaming agreements. A person wanting to use a
phone in South Africa would then buy a SIM card in South Africa, but there
would be a problem in dialling cellphone numbers overseas because there would
be no agreement for overseas access. USA had originally not provided roaming
facilities to visitors, simply by reason of using AMPS instead of GSM
technology, but had realised that this was closing off the rest of the world,
and had taken steps to allow roaming. Perhaps with new technology it might be
possible to block individuals from roaming facilities, but at present it was
not possible.
Ms Nunan summarised that essentially foreign network operators were clients of
the network operators in South Africa. Individuals were not clients and privacy
issues would apply.
Mr le Roux asked if the passing of the legislation in its current form would
then mean that there would be no roaming in South Africa.
Mr Pongwana confirmed that this would be the result. He pointed out that there
were penalties included in the Act, which would act against the operators even
in cases where it was not possible for them to comply .
Information to be registered
Mr Pongwana asked again whether it was envisaged that it would be the
responsibility of the operators to capture details of a phone sold - or offered
as a free gift - by any store.
Mr Worth understood the intention of combating crime. However, he thought
it unlikely that a criminal would use his own phone for an armed hold-up; he
would be most likely to steal or buy another phone.
Mr Pongwana added that a cellphone could already be linked to a computer
and have its IMEI number changed. Business Against Crime had noted that a phone blacklisted in South
Africa could simply be exported out of South Africa. Vodacom was prepared to
issue advertisements to consumers to ensure blacklisting.
The Chairperson asked if a person's phone could be traced if, as the operators
suggested, only the MSISDN number were to be recorded.
Mr Pongwana responded that phones were not just sold by the operators, so that
the operators would not know about the sale of handsets if not recorded.
However, the SIM card was necessary to use the phones in South Africa (in USA
this was not necessary, because of different technology.) Therefore, it was
possible for a phone to be stolen and used to commit a crime. The present
registration mechanism required allocation of certain individual to each
operator. It was possible to pick up which were in the distribution channel,
and which had been activated. The operators would call a number redundant if it
had not been used for three to seven months, and it would be reallocated. The
reason for existence of the Office for Interception was to permit data-mining.
Even it was not possible to link a stolen phone to a particular number and
individual immediately, this could be traced through a data-mining process on
another database. When the registration was linked to a SIM-card number, it was
possible to assess that this SIM card was used in a particular phone at a
particular place. The owner of the SIM card could be ascertained. This did not
need to be legislated - the provision was already available. SAPS would use the
trails in proving their cases. If the phone was stolen, it might be possible to
link to the individual who used the phone.
Ms Bulbulia added that when the MSISDN was activated, the IMEI and IMSI numbers
were activated immediately. If the police requested the details of the MSISDN,
or the name, the other numbers would also come up. A practical problem, and one
of the main concerns, was that the inputting of multiple-digit numbers would
inevitably lead to errors.
Ms Botha reiterated that it was necessary to have trustworthy and readily
available information in South Africa for detection of crime. Having to data
mine would involve time and its own problems.
Mr Z Ntuli (ANC, Kwazulu Natal) asked about the addresses used by service
providers, particularly in informal settlement and rural areas.
Mr Pongwana said that the Department of Justice had gone some way to addressing
the problems that arose from lack of a comprehensive national address system.
In rural areas, a Chief could sign an affidavit to help individuals prove their
residence in a locality. People were able also to use the addresses of
businesses or community centres or shops. These issues compounded the
complications of data requirements. Lessons would be learned from the practical
implication.
Summarised submissions
The Chairperson asked each representative to give a summary.
Cell C submitted that the 1 January 2008 date was not realistic, the time
period to conclude registration would not be feasible, and that South African
should try to avoid being the one country in the world where roaming was not
possible. Operators were good corporate citizens, and would try to support
crime prevention and implementable legislation.
Vodacom assured the Committee that all operators were prepared to implement the
legislation. They wanted to assist Parliament and the Executive to produce
practicable, implementable and workable legislation. Cooperation in the fight
against crime went further than any legislation, and involved other dimensions
and other stakeholders. He thanked the Committee for the opportunity to engage
in such a meaningful way.
MTN noted that cellphones had moved from being luxury items to necessities,
particularly in the rural areas. The wording and implementation of the Bill was
very important to avoid repercussions to the operators and communities. The
industry had been setting up working groups relating to fraud, grey phones and
blacklisting. Finances and manpower were invested in these important issues. It
was important to work together to ensure the interests of the economy and
communities.
After the representatives of the network operators had left the Committee
continued with further discussions on the Bill.
Discussion
The Chairperson felt that the comments had made sense. He appreciated the
conveying of information from the Portfolio Committee. However, he cautioned
that this should not imply that this was the end of the matter. The NCOP
committees must consider the matters independently and were not bound by the
Portfolio Committee decisions.
Mr Moseki noted that the country was already under criticism for the
difficulties and costs of doing business, and the amount of red tape. The
Department was correct in being careful to try to cover issues of security.
However, he felt that good points had been made on the problems. He thought
that there was a need to find a middle road.
Mr Moseki was particularly concerned about the time frames. Although the
parallels drawn might not be fully justified, the reality was that South Africa
should be careful to impose time limits that could not be met. He felt that the
suggestion of thirty six months was too long, but that a middle ground could be
found.
Mr Worth expressed his view that the operators could be put to terms to
register within twelve months, unless
they provided proof that they absolutely could not do the registrations in this
period.
Mr Bassett said that there was no technical information given on what was
required from a practical point of view.
Mr le Roux noted that the drafters were lawyers, not technical people. The
providers had noted that it was "technically impossible" to register
roamers. He wondered if there had ever been evidence that this was indeed
technically possible.
Mr Worth noted that all visitors to South Africa must fill in an immigration
card. He wondered if it was not possible to insist that the cell phone details
be inserted on that card. He admitted that some people might give a false
number or no number; but the majority would be covered in this way.
Mr Bassett said that he had been given to understood
that a roaming facility could be blocked unless registered, but was now hearing
the opposite. He would like the opportunity to get clarity.
Mr Bassett noted that the drafters would take the roaming issue back to their
principals, for a view on whether there was the possibility of compromise.
The Chairperson said that the principals, being the Executive, no longer had a
prerogative to comment.
Mr Ntuthuzelo Vanara, Parliamentary Legal Advisor, agreed that this was a
Parliamentary Bill, and the executive had already made its decision when
deciding to approve the Bill. Parliament would determine what was included. He
noted that consultation should not go in cycles. He noted that there had
already been consultations with the service providers, which did not seem to
have worked, and surely the technical issues should have been raised before. There
was still a level of uncertainty. He questioned whether this Committee needed
to extend the levels of consultation. Both sides had been heard, and both
agreed that there seemed to be a need for consultation, yet did not seem able
as yet to accommodate each other.
Dr van Heerden pointed out that whether or not the Department wished to consult
their principals, he would support consultation on a technical basis with the
service providers. He did not believe this Committee could take the matter any
further before receiving a redraft of the Bill from the Department.
He noted that other pieces of legislation dealt with similar issues and asked
that the relationship be checked. He asked what would be done about the
providers who sold handsets, with starter packs to be purchased elsewhere.
Mr Bassett noted that a person buying a handset there would be required to go
to a registration point put up by the network operators, before being able to
use the phone. The handset, SIM card and other information required would have
to be registered first.
The Department then gave some responses and made further points in relation to
the questions raised in the earlier discussions.
In relation to the time frames, Ms Botha confirmed that indeed information had
been provided to the Department in 2005. The Portfolio Committee had expressed
concerns on the accuracy of the information, based on information received from
other sources, and had therefore requested audited figures in June 2006.
Figures were certainly given to the department, but no figures had been given
to the Committee.
Mr Robbertse added that South Africa was not the first country in the world to
implement this process. All other countries had allowed six months for
registration. The current Bill was allowing six months more.
In response to the registration of all the IMEI, IMSI and MSISDN numbers, Mr
Bassett said that if a SIM card alone was registered, it would be possible to
pick up the IMEI number. However, the Department wanted all the various components
to be registered before a cellphone could be used. Registration of the MSISDN
number only would not achieve every component being registered against a known
person's name, for use as evidence. He had noted the comment on data mining,
but the Department did not want to have to go this route, but rather to have
all the information available at one source.
Mr Robbertse added that the Bill envisaged locking a SIM card to a specific
cellphone. If a person attempted to use that SIM card in another, non-registered
phone, the call could not be made. This would allow tracing of the registered
owner of a specific handset. If a SIM card was locked to a cellular phone, the
handset could never again be used without an ID and particulars being
requested. In the case of a person who had simply failed to register within the
requisite time period, he would not be precluded from ever using the phone.
However, any request to allow a handset to be used could be traced.
In response to the foreign roaming issues, Ms Botha noted that when a SIM card
was stolen, a person should report the loss in terms of Section 40(1) so that
the number could be blacklisted. The Department had understood that if this was
possible, then it should be possible also to block other numbers. It was
difficult at this point to determine with any finality what could and could not
be done, especially since the representatives attending today had not
themselves been technical representatives. A follow up meeting was probably
worthwhile.
Mr Robbertse agreed that there would need to be further discussions as to how
the Bill could be re-drafted. However, not all the points made were entirely
valid. In other countries, where roaming agreements may not exist, this was not
necessarily a bar to foreigners opting to visit. In principle it had not been
explained why foreign visitors should be in a less onerous position than own
citizens, in regard to registration, as the same reasons for registration
applied.
Mr Bassett noted that the roaming requirements could be exempted for large
events like the 2010 World Cup. He pointed out that only the personal
particulars of the roamers would need to be registered; not all the details
that would be required of South African citizens, so that the information was
not burdensome.
Mr Vanara noted that the concerns raised by the industry were not so much as to
what the operators were able to do, but whether customers would come to
register. Except for a provision to say that people must register, there was
nothing to compel them to do so. South Africa was not living in an ideal
society and not everyone would respond. He suggested that the Bill should
contain a specific provision.
Mr Robbertse replied that Section 62 of the Act would provide that if there was
not registration within a period of twelve months, service would be terminated.
However, there was nothing preventing that person from requesting a
re-connection once the details were provided.
Mr Vanara finally commented upon the suggestion as conveyed that there should
not be delegation of powers to the Minister in respect of possible extensions
of time. He did not believe that there was anything unconstitutional in
delegating such powers to the Minister.
The Chairperson asked the Department to meet with and clear matters with the
service providers. The Committee would be looking to finalise the matter at a
further meeting on 6 November.
Other business
The Committee had been requested by the Portfolio Committee had requested an
oversight visit, together with this Committee, to Pollsmoor Prison. Some
Members would attend the oversight visit, and others would attend to a cluster
meeting to consider annual reports.
The meeting was adjourned.
Audio
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.