Constitutional Amendment Bills: voting; Criminal Procedure Second Amendment Bill: deliberations

This premium content has been made freely available

Justice and Correctional Services

22 October 2001
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

A summary of this committee meeting is not yet available.

Meeting report

 

JUSTICE AND CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE
23 October 2001
CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA AMENDMENT BILL; CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA SECOND AMENDMENT BILL: VOTING; CRIMINAL PROCEDURE SECOND AMENDMENT BILL: DELIBERATIONS

Chairperson:
Adv de Lange (ANC)

Documents Handed Out:
Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Amendment Bill [B68–2001]
Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Second Amendment Bill [B78–2001]
Portfolio Committee Amendments to the Constitution Amendment Bill (Appendix 1)
Portfolio Committee Amendments to the Constitution Second Amendment Bill (Appendix 2)
Criminal Procedure Second Amendment Bill [B45-2001]
Criminal Procedure Second Amendment Bill [Working Document: Draft 1]

SUMMARY
The Committee voted on and passed the two Constitutional Amendment Bills. The Inkatha Freedom Party abstained from voting on the constitutional amendments, as they believe the Constitution, as it stands, is still silent on issues relating to traditional leaders. The Committee continued the deliberations on the Criminal Procedure Second Amendment Bill.

MINUTES

Mr Jeffrey (ANC) raised two concerns: firstly, had the first Constitutional Amendment Bill been tagged; and secondly, had more than 30 days passed from the date of the introduction of the Second Amendment Bill? The Committee continued with its business while he sought the information.

Adv de Lange said that there were three main issues which had arisen regarding the Bills to be considered and he would raise these at the appropriate time.

Mr Mzizi (IFP) made a brief statement. He had been asked by his party to refrain from voting on the Constitutional Amendment Bills on a point of principle. He did not have a problem with the contents thereof, but did not have his party’s support to vote on the matters. [ed – this relates to the fact that the IFP have decided not to approve any Constitutional amendments because they believe that there are still outstanding issues relating to the position of ‘traditional leaders’ in the existing Constitution. Until they are addressed they are abstaining from voting on any subsequent Constitutional amendments].

Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Amendment Bill
Clause 1
Text of original bill accepted.
Clause 2
Text of original bill accepted.
Clause 3
Committee amendment accepted.
Clause 4
Committee amendment accepted.
Clause 5 (formerly clause 3 of original Bill)
Text of original bill accepted.
Clause 6 (formerly clause 4)
Text of original bill accepted.
Clause 7 (formerly clause 5)
Committee amendment accepted.
Clause 8 (formerly clause 6)
Text of original bill accepted.
Clause 9 (formerly clause 7)
Text of original bill accepted.
Clause 10 (formerly clause 8)
Text of original bill accepted.
Clause 9 (of original Bill)
Rejected.
Clause 10 (of original Bill)
Rejected.
Clause 11,12,13,14
Text of original bill accepted.
Clause 15
Dr Delport (DP) suggested that the clause contained tautology as the phrase ‘a Constitutional Court judge’ was mentioned at the beginning and the end. He suggested the clause should end at ‘term of office.’ Adv de Lange (ANC) said he felt the proposed wording was the only way to ensure that the application of the clause was nuanced enough to take account of the varying situations of the judges.
Committee amendment accepted.
Clause 16
Text of original bill accepted.
Clause 17
A debate followed on further alterations to the Committee amendment.

Adv de Lange (ANC) expressed concern over the need for the proposed S230A (2)(b). He said that the Department of Justice had been asked for their views. Committee members expressed concern over the need to have the provisions spelt out in such detail in the Constitution when they were matters better suited to legislation.

Ms Chohan-Kota asked whether the South African Local Government Association (SALGA) had been consulted over the latest amendment. If not why not? Adv de Lange said she was being ‘difficult’ as she knew it was impractical for individual organisations to be consulted on their views every time an amendment was proposed.

Mr Mzizi (IFP) suggested that sub-clause (2)(b) should be removed. Adv de Lange asked if the remaining clauses would read easier if ss(2) and sub-clause (2)(a) was then moved up to sub-clause (1)(a). This proposal seemed accepted.

Adv de Lange also raised the issue of whether the phrase ‘legislative and executive authority’ in sub-clause (1)(b) was accurate, as the raising of loans was a legislative function which could not be delegated to any other body. An ANC member pointed out that the clause referred to loans or investments.’ Could an executive carry out investment functions? Ms Camerer (NNP) said surely the executive and legislature must agree anyway before any loans or investments were entered into.

Adv de Lange said that the problem with the clause centred around the publicised advice of Adv Wim Trengove. The Committee and Mr de Lange (Department of Justice) queried the advice. Adv Trengove advised that the text of the Constitution would only allow the Council to bind itself for up to five years. He said that personally he did not understand why the position for municipal councils should be different to the provincial or national spheres of government. However the Department thought they should rather not allow for someone to challenge the provisions.

Ms Chohan-Kota (ANC) said Adv Trengove’s concern turned on Section 159 of the Constitution; he regards the terms ‘municipal council’ and ‘municipality’ as interchangeable. This has the effect of perpetuating the pre-1994 ‘mind-set’ that local government was the creature of legislation, not the Constitution. Section 151(2) of the Constitution distinguishes between the ‘municipality’ and the specific ‘municipal council’ when it describes the ‘executive and legislative’ power vested in it.

An ANC member said it was important to remember that the municipal executive were not superior to the executive legislature, but rather it was the other way around. Another ANC member said it was his understanding that the purpose of sub-section (b) was to ensure that the Municipal Council did not secure a loan against taxes, for example. Dr Delport (DP) asked why they couldn’t simply include that subsequent councils could be bound by the terms of a loan or investment? Miss Magazi (ANC) asked how the contracts entered into by the post-apartheid municipalities had remained in force? Adv Masutha (ANC) said the transitional arrangements surrounding the creation of a new Republic of South Africa had included the acceptance of all outstanding debts. Thereafter, the ‘state’ continued to exist with merely the governments changing. Under the apartheid system the state had not included municipalities, but this seemed to be different now. Did municipalities have perpetual existence? Ms Chohan-Kota (ANC) said that one of the principle purposes of the Local Government: Municipal Structures Act No 117 of 1998 was to make the Municipal Council a legal entity also.

Adv de Lange proposed that the clause be passed in the following form:
"Municipal Loans"
230A (1) A Municipal Council may, in accordance with national legislation -
raise loans for capital or current expenditure of the municipality, but loans for current expenditure may be raised only when necessary for bridging purposes during a fiscal year; and bind itself and a future Council in the exercise of its legislative and executive authority to secure loans or investments for the municipality.
The Committee agreed with the new amendment.
Clause 18
(formerly clause 17)
Text of original bill accepted.
Clause 19 (formerly clause 18)
Text of original bill accepted.
Clause 20 (formerly clause 19)
Committee amendment accepted.
Clause 21 (formerly clause 20)
Text of original bill accepted. It was pointed out that the problem relating to Justice Chaskalson’s retirement derived from the Constitution, not the legislation and, if the legislation was not altered, then the Constitutional Amendment would be futile.
Short title
The words ‘comes into effect by Proclamation by the President’ were to be removed in order that the Act becomes law when the President signs it.
Long title
Ms Camerer (NNP) felt that the long title did not accurately reflect the content of the Bill as it misled what the changes regarding Constitutional Court judges were.
Dr Delport (DP) suggested that it should rather read ‘to provide for the extension of the term of office of Constitutional Court judges.’ This was added to the proposed Long Title.

The Bill was passed with ten voting in favour and one abstention.

Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Second Amendment Bill
Clause 1
Committee amendment accepted.
Clause 2
Committee amendment accepted.
Adv de Lange, however, raised the issue of whether Parliament could alter the terms of a Money Bill. He said that there was nothing in the Constitution to say they could not, but under the previous dispensation a convention had arisen where this was not done. If the Constitution extended the meaning of Money Bill, would the convention still play a part and, accordingly, limit Parliament’s powers? It was awkward in that the clause did not even allow for the Rules of Parliament to determine whether the new Money Bills could be amended. Mr Magwanishe (ANC) said there was nothing new in the clause so he could not understand what everyone was worried about. Ms Hogan, Chair of the Finance Portfolio Committee, did not foresee any difficulties, so the Committee amendment stood.
Clause 3
Rejected.
Clause 4
Committee amendment accepted.
Clause 5
Rejected.
Clause 6
Rejected.
Clause 7
Rejected.
Clause 8
Committee amendment accepted.
Clause 9
Rejected.
Clause 10
Text of original Bill accepted.
Clause 11
Text of original Bill accepted.
Clause 12
Committee amendment accepted.
Ms Camerer (NNP) said she had to abstain from voting on this clause as it had been accidentally omitted from consideration by her party and she needed their prior approval.
Mr Magwanishe (ANC) said there was a potential problem with Clause 12(2) in that it stated sub-section (1) had to take effect by 1 April 2002. This timeframe seemed too tight. Another ANC member said he would contact the Chair of the Financial and Fiscal Commission to see when the current members’ terms of office ended. Mr Magwanishe said the sub-section could be removed and the date for compliance left to the President to bring in with the Interpretation Act. It was subsequently discovered that the FFC members’ term of office ran out in January 2002. This created a problem. Adv de Lange said the matter would stand over until later in the meeting so that the relevant Act relating to the FFC could be brought before the Committee.
Clause 13
Text of original Bill accepted.
Clause 14
Text of original Bill accepted.
Clause 15
The Committee noted that Mr de Lange had to undertake minor redrafting to the clause, but that it seemed otherwise acceptable.
Short Title
Text of original Bill accepted.
Long Title
The text was to be altered to remove the following.
’…to provide for national supervision of local administration if a municipality fails to comply with an obligation in terms of legislation or the Constitution;
to further regulate national supervision of provincial administration;
to extend the principle that provinces’ equitable share of revenue raised nationally are direct charges against the National Revenue Fund, to locate governments’ equitable share.’
The word ‘further’ was also to be removed.

The Committee then went on to vote on the Bill in clusters of clauses because certain Members wished to abstain from voting in regard to a number of clauses. The votes of these Members were to be confirmed later.

The first cluster of clauses, Clauses 1 to 10 as amended, were adopted unanimously.

In relation to Clause 11: Dr J T Delport (DP) and Ms S M Camerer (NNP) abstained. Ms Camerer explained that she would have to abstain in light of a submission she had received from the Western Cape Government. This submission reminded the Committee that the Government had been given a certain degree of discretion. The feeling towards the clause was that it narrowed the discretion which they enjoyed. The problem arises that often there are no resources to fulfill such an obligation. The fact that they are obliged to implement National Legislation, in terms of the clause means that they might have to act to their detriment or will not be able to fulfill an obligation.
Ms Camerer apologised for not having discussed the matter in her caucus due to insufficient time but consequently she could not properly vote on the matter.

Clause 11 and Clause 12 had two abstentions and eight votes in favour.

Ms Camerer told the Committee that the Western Cape Government had also noted a reservation in regard to Clause 13. This was because municipalities were obliged to order their budgets in terms of the South African Constitution and their own Provincial Constitutions. She told the Committee that this matter would also have to be raised in her caucus.

Clauses 14, 15 and 16 were then voted on in one cluster. The Committee was unanimously in favour of these clauses.

The Amendment Bill was therefore passed.

Criminal Procedure Second Amendment Bill
The Committee considered the changes proposed by the Working Document Draft 1.

Sub-clause 4
It was noted that the words ‘open court’ were removed because the Criminal Procedure Act allows for very few in camera hearings, so the provision was unnecessary.

Sub-clause (4)(ii) ensured that procedural requirements, such as the police checking with the victim, had been complied with before the matter proceeded further in the courtroom.

Ms Camerer (NNP) said that she felt the word ‘require’ in sub-clause (4)(i) was inappropriate, as the accused could not be compelled to say anything. Adv de Lange suggested that it be altered to ‘request.’ An ANC member felt the retention of ‘require’ was alright as the provisions related to the formal requirements of the agreement, not its substantive content. Mr Labuschagne (Department) said he felt it was a valid point. The substance of the agreement would be checked after it had been disclosed in open court as per sub-clause (6).

Adv de Lange asked if sub-clause 2(e) was in the correct place? Mr Labuschagne asked whether the Committee felt the sub-clause could be removed all together. Adv de Lange decided that it was in the correct place as a clear attempt had been made by the drafters to demarcate the procedural aspects from the substantive aspects of the Bill. The directives could not add any content to the crime, they could only regulate how the agreement was to be drafted. Ms Chohan-Kota (ANC) said the drafting of the sub-clause made things a little unclear. Holding it out as a separate sub-clause did not seem to make it part and parcel of the agreement. She wondered how the sub-clause would affect prosecutors? She did not want it to go further than subjecting them to internal disciplinary measures. Adv de Lange said the Committee had to straighten this out because he did not want an accused to take this issue on appeal.

Mr Labuschagne says that the Criminal Procedure Act places a responsibility on the prosecutor to act within the terms of the directives. As this is currently the case there is no need to re-iterate it in sub-clause (e). This could lead to confusion and cases being taken to appeal.

Ms Chohan-Kota (ANC) said that as the Act contained an obligation to work within the terms of the directives, this meant that the issue was justiciable. She suggested sub-clause 2(e) be removed, and the situation be retained which permits the National Director of Prosecutions to make directives which the prosecutor must comply with or they are disciplined. Adv de Lange said it was important to remember that directives are not the same as regulations. It was better to leave any determination over whether they were reasonable and complied with to the courts. Dr Delport (DP) lent his support to the Chair. The Bill distinguished between two issues: was an agreement entered into after a specific process; and was the accused guilty of the crime and is the agreed sentence fair? The directives will assist, but they are not the concern of the magistrate. Mr Labuschagne reminded the Committee that the only reason the sub-clause had been put in was following concerns that the list contained in sub-clause 2(a) was all-inclusive. But really, the clause was not necessary.

Adv de Lange asked where legal force was given to the directives if (e) was removed? What would compel the prosecutor to act within the terms of the directives? Mr Labuschagne said these requirements were contained within sub-clause 11(b)(i). Adv de Lange suggested that they then add the words ‘at least’ to sub-clause 11(b)(i). The sub-clause would then read ‘must at least ensure that.’ He said (e) might need to be moved but he would have to consider it further.

Adv Masutha (ANC) said laws should be seen as regulations. Directives should be seen as internal matters and not subject to legal sanctions. Therefore (e) should be removed entirely. Directives would change from time to time with policy changes. Adv de Lange said he would think about the matter and they could discuss it again later.

Mr Labuschagne (Department of Justice) prepared a document which detailed the sections as they stood as well as a number of options that could be considered.

The amendment to Section 105A(5) was discussed. This discussion was conducted with reference to the option provided by Mr Labuschagne. The option was suggested by the Department of Justice, that the accused be required to plead to the charge. Mr Labuschagne said that there was no need for the accused to actually enter a plea because once an agreement had been entered into the accused only needed to confirm that an agreement had indeed been entered into. The Committee decided to go with the option.

The Committee also agreed to the option for Section 105A (6) and (6)(b).

Imam G Solomon (ANC) then told the Committee he felt that the optional subsection (6)(b)(iii) read awkwardly because of the apostrophe: "accused’s". The Committee agreed and decided that the subsection should instead read " that the plea of guilty by the accused".

The optional subsection (7) gives the court a little more scope when deciding on the sentence. It provides that the court can ask questions and hear evidence, including that pertaining to past convictions and the testimony of the complainant. This is done to ascertain whether the sentence agreed upon is sufficient.

Mr M A Mzizi (IFP) asked to what extent it would be likely that the court would hear the testimony of the complainant.
Mr Labuschagne told the Committee that at present, when an accused pleads guilty there is absolutely no obligation to hear the testimony of the complainant, on matters such as the degree to which they have been affected. Those types of provisions in this Bill therefore provide for a minimal consideration of the complainant’s rights where previously there was none.

The drafters then reformulated subsections (8) and (9) by removing subsection (8)(b) from that subsection and repositioning it as the new subsection (9)(a). Adv de Lange was of the view that the new construction of these two subsections was much better that than the previous one. The suggested option was adopted.

Adv de Lange did however not agree with the suggested option for subsection 10. The Department felt that where a trial starts de novo as contemplated in subsections (6)(b) and (9), then the agreement should be null and void and most importantly that none of the admissions contained in the agreement shall be admissible against the accused. The Department’s view was contained in the subsections as it stood, while the option embodied the opinion of Dr de Oliviera. Dr de Oliviera felt that subsection (1)(b) should be removed so that in certain circumstances these admissions can be led as evidence against the accused.
Mr Labuschagne disagreed with Adv de Lange’s sentiment saying that if the accused wanted certain facts to be admitted, then these facts could be admitted in court.

Adv de Lange told the Department that he agreed completely with Dr de Oliviera’s view because the provision in question would apply only to the legally represented accused. There should thus be a proviso in the subsection providing that if the accused agrees to the recording of certain facts, then those facts should stand and be admissible as evidence in court. For this reason the option, subject to the inclusion of a proviso, was adopted.

The last subsection was the new subsection (11), a very important provision needed to fill the gap created by removing the words "subject to the directives" at the beginning of Section 105A. As illustrated above, these words would have created the untenable position where the action of the Act could be modified through the directives. To remedy this problem the subsection provides that directives regarding all matters which are reasonably necessary or expedient to be prescribed in order to achieve the objects of the section be issued. This formulation was felt to be much better that the original one which made the Act subject to the directives.

It was furthermore provided that the directives would include the disciplinary measures that would be taken against a prosecutor who failed to comply with Section 105A or any of the directives. Subsection 11 also provided that procedures to be followed regarding offences which carry minimum sentences, offences where the court had the power to conduct specific enquiries and offences where the court would have the power to make specific orders upon conviction, for example correctional supervision.

The subsections under (11)(b)(ii) all flowed from concerns raised during public hearings. These were specifically the areas of correctional supervision and instances where the court had the power to remove a driver’s license. These concerns were raised by Dr de Oliviera, who asked whether or not the power of a prosecutor to bargain on sentence would include the power to bargain in relation to the confiscation of a fire arm, the invalidation of a drivers license or the provision correctional supervision. He told the Committee that it needed to clearly outline, whether a prosecutor, duly authorised, would have the power to bargain on matters where the court usually enjoyed a discretion.

The meeting was adjourned.

Appendix 1:

 

Appendix 1:

As to be voted on

PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS
TO
CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA AMENDMENT BILL
[B 68—2001]
(As agreed to by the Portfolio Committee on Justice and Constitutional Development
(National Assembly) )
__________
NEW CLAUSES
1. That the following be new Clauses:
Substitution of section 54 of Act 108 of 1996
3.
The following section is hereby substituted for section 54 of the Constitution:
"Rights of certain Cabinet members and Deputy Ministers in the National Assembly
54.
The President, and any member of the Cabinet or any Deputy Minister who is not a member of the National Assembly, may, subject to the rules and orders of the Assembly, attend and [may] speak in the Assembly, but may not vote.".
Amendment of section 58 of Act 108 of 1996
4.
Section 58 of the Constitution is hereby amended by the substitution for the words preceding paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of the following words:
"Cabinet members, Deputy Ministers and members of the National Assembly—".
CLAUSE 5
1. Clause rejected.
NEW CLAUSE
1. That the following be a new Clause:
Substitution of section 93 of Act 108 of 1996
7.
The following section is hereby substituted for section 93 of the Constitution:
"Deputy Ministers
93.
(1) The President may appoint
(a)
any number of Deputy Ministers from among the members of the National Assembly; and
(b)
no more than two Deputy Ministers from outside the Assembly,
to assist the members of the Cabinet, and may dismiss them.
(2) Deputy Ministers appointed in terms of subsection (1)(b) are accountable to Parliament for the exercise of their powers and the performance of their functions.".
 
CLAUSE 9
1. Clause rejected.
CLAUSE 10
1. Clause rejected.
CLAUSE 15
1. Clause rejected.
NEW CLAUSE
1. That the following be a new Clause:
Amendment of section 176 of Act 108 of 1996
15.
Section 176 of the Constitution is hereby amended by the substitution for subsection (1) of the following subsection:
"(1) A Constitutional Court judge [is appointed] holds office for a non-renewable term of 12 years, [but must retire at] or until he or she attains the age of 70, whichever occurs first, except where an Act of Parliament extends the term of office of a Constitutional Court judge.".
NEW CLAUSE
NEW CLAUSENEW CLAUSE
1. That the following be a new Clause:
Insertion of section 230A in Act 108 of 1996
17.
The following section is hereby inserted in the Constitution after section 230:
"Municipal loans
230A.
(1) A municipal council may, in accordance with national legislation—
(a)
raise loans for capital or current expenditure of the municipality; and
(b)
bind itself and a future council in the exercise of its legislative and executive authority to secure loans or investments for the municipality.
(2)
Loans for current expenditure—
(a)
may be raised only when necessary for bridging purposes during a fiscal year; and
(b)
must be repaid within twelve months.
(3)
National legislation referred to in subsection (1) may be enacted only after any recommendations of the Financial and Fiscal Commission have been considered.".
LONG TITLE
1. On page 2, from the seventh line, to omit all the words from "to provide for mechanisms" up to and including "legislative authority" in the ninth line, and to substitute:
to make enable a municipal council to bind itself and a future council in the exercise of its legislative and executive authority to secure loans or investments for the municipality


Appendix 2:

As to be voted on

PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS
TO
CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA SECOND AMENDMENT BILL
[B 78—2001]
__________
(As agreed to by the Portfolio Committee on Justice and Constitutional Development
(National Assembly) )
__________
 
CLAUSE 1
 
1. On page 3, from line 4, to omit paragraph (b) and to substitute:
"(b) a Bill which provides for legislation envisaged in section 214.".
CLAUSE 2
1. On page 3, from line 25, to omit subsection (2) and to substitute:
(2) A money Bill may not deal with any other matter except –
(a) a subordinate matter incidental to the appropriation of money; [or]
(b) the imposition, abolition or reduction of national taxes, levies, [or] duties or surcharges;
(c) the granting of exemption from national taxes, levies, duties or surcharges; or
(d)
the authorisation of direct charges against the National Revenue Fund.
CLAUSE 3
1. Clause rejected.
CLAUSE 4
1. On page 4, from line 23, to omit subsection (2) and to substitute:
(2) A money Bill may not deal with any other matter except –
(a) a subordinate matter incidental to the appropriation of money; [or]
(b) the imposition, abolition or reduction of provincial taxes, levies, [or] duties or surcharges;
(c) the granting of exemption from provincial taxes, levies, duties or surcharges; or
(d)
the authorisation of direct charges against a Provincial Revenue Fund.
CLAUSE 5
1. Clause rejected.
CLAUSE 6
1. Clause rejected.
CLAUSE 7
Clause rejected.
CLAUSE 8
1. On page 5, in line 33, to omit "and".
2. On page 5, in line 35, to omit "[and " and to substitute "and".
3. On page 5, in line 36, to omit "(iii) nominate persons to the Financial and Fiscal Commission]" and to substitute:
(iii) [nominate persons to the Financial and Fiscal Commission] participate in the process prescribed in the national legislation envisaged in section 221(1) (c)."

CLAUSE 9
1. Clause rejected.
CLAUSE 12
1. On page 6, from line 18, to omit paragraphs (b) and (c) and to substitute:
(b) [nine persons, each of whom is nominated by the Executive
Council of a province, with each province nominating only one person]
three persons selected, after consulting the Premiers, from a list compiled in accordance with a process prescribed by national legislation;
(c) two persons [nominated by organised local government in terms of section 163] selected, after consulting organised local government, from a list compiled in accordance with a process prescribed by national legislation; and
2. On page 6, from line 25, to omit paragraph (b) and to substitute:
(b) by the insertion after subsection (1) of the following subsection:
"(1A) National legislation referred to in subsection (1) must provide for the participation of—
(a) the Premiers in the compilation of a list envisaged in subsection (1) (b); and
(b) organised local government in the compilation of a list envisaged in subsection (1)(c).
".
3. On page 6, in line 28, to omit subclause 2.
CLAUSE 15
1. Clause rejected.
NEW CLAUSE
1. That the following be a new Clause:
Substitution of section 230 of Act 108 of 1996
10.
The following section is hereby substituted for section 230 of the Constitution:
"Provincial loans
230.
(1) A province [or a municipality] may raise loans for capital or current expenditure in accordance with [reasonable conditions determined by] national legislation, but loans for current expenditure [-
(a)]
may be raised only when necessary for bridging purposes during a fiscal year [and
(b) must be repaid within twelve months]
.
(2) National legislation referred to in subsection (1) may be enacted only after any recommendations of the Financial and Fiscal Commission have been considered.".
LONG TITLE
On page 2, from the seventh line, to omit all the words from "to provide for national supervision" up to and including "equitable share;" in the thirteenth line.
2. On page 2, in the fourteenth line, to omit "further".
3. On page 2, in the twenty-sixth line, to omit "further provision for the regulation of municipal and" and to substitute "provision for".

Audio

No related

Documents

No related documents

Present

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