GBV Bills: finalisation

Justice and Correctional Services

29 May 2021

Chairperson: Mr G Magwanishe (ANC)

Meeting Summary

The Portfolio Committee on Justice and Correctional Services met on a virtual platform for a final consideration of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences and Related Matters) Amendment Act Amendment Bill and the Domestic Violence Amendment Bill. The main activity was to ensure that all amendments made to the original draft Bills had been accurately captured in the final version of the Bills.

The amendments to the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences and Related Matters) Amendment Act Amendment Bill (A-list and B-list) and the Memorandum On the Objects of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences and Related Matters) Amendment Act Amendment Bill were accepted with no further amendments and adopted by the Committee with two opposition parties reserving their rights. The Committee finalised it report on the Bill to the National Assembly.

Concerning the Domestic Violence Amendment Bill, a new paragraph had been added, stating that a complainant had to be informed by the clerk of a court if an application for a protection order was not issued. Clause 24 was discussed extensively as the Minister was obliged only to submit the regulations to Parliament prior to publication in the gazette. Approval was not required. The conundrum was that Parliament had a constitutional duty in respect of all legislation, including secondary legislation, but processes in Parliament to give approval would result in an inordinate delay. A new clause 26 had been added, requiring that all directives and regulations be submitted to Parliament within 12 months of the proclamation of the Bill. The same requirement applied to Directors-General who had to submit directives to Parliament within 12 months of the proclamation of the Act. Considering that nod to parliamentary oversight, the Committee accepted that it would be sufficient for the Minister to merely submit regulations to Parliament. The short title had been redrafted to ensure that clause 26 was immediately operationalised on proclamation of the Bill.

It was proposed by a Member that, going forward, the Committee should consider its role in legislation. It was the role of the Executive to operationalise and not to determine legislation, so if the requirement was simply to operationalise legislation, it could be delegated to the Executive, but when it went beyond operationalising, Parliament should be involved. The Committee adopted the Domestic Violence Act Amendment Bill with three opposition parties reserving their rights.

The Chairperson indicated that the intention was for the National Assembly to debate the Bills before the upcoming recess. He praised the state law advisors, the legal advisors from Parliament, as well as Committee Members and staff, NGOs, the public and the media for the hard work and many contributions to the Bills that he believed would play a critical role in curbing gender-based violence in the country. Members echoed his sentiments and the Committee dedicated the Bills to two late colleagues: Jacqui Mofokeng and the late Hisamodien Mohamed, who had worked extensively on the Bills.

The Committee adopted the Report of the Portfolio Committee on the appointment of Commissioners to the South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC). It would be submitted to the National Assembly.

Meeting Report

Opening remarks

The Chairperson welcomed Members and everyone on the platform.

Presentation on the Amendments to the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) B-list

Mr Henk du Preez, State Legal Advisor, Department of Justice & Constitutional Development (DOJ&CD), presented the final B-list of the Bill. He scrolled through the Amendments to the Bill, showing the Committee where changes had been made, as agreed by the Committee. The majority of changes were consequential amendments.

(The sound was poor and distorted.)

Clause 1: Amendment approved the previous day.

Clause 2: Consequential amendments.

Clause 3: The proposed Amendment to section 12 of the Act dealing with incest.

Clause 4: The new provision dealing with sexual intimidation.

Clause 5: As discussed the previous day – Amendments to the definition section of Chapter 6.

Clause 7: Subsection s4, 5, 6 had been inserted the previous day.

Clause 10: Inclusion of sections 44(b) and (c).

Clause 11: Consequential amendments.

Clause 12: Consequential amendments.

Clause 13: Consequential amendments.

Clause 15: Consequential amendments.

Clause 16: Consequential amendments.

Clause 17: Dealt with the removal of particulars from the National Register of Sex Offenders.

Clause 18: Consequential amendment.

Clause 19: Committee had accepted the amendments the previous day.

Clause 20: Consequential amendments.

Clause 21: Amendment to the long title of the Act.

Clause 22: Consequential amendments.

Clause 23: Short Title amendment.

Memorandum on the Objects of the Bill

Mr du Preez also presented the Memorandum on the Objects to the Bill. The amendments had been effected and the Memorandum would be reflected in the B List of the Bill.

The Committee accepted the B list as presented by Mr Du Preez.

Presentation on the Amendments to the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) A-list

Mr du Preez presented the A List –the Portfolio Committee Amendments to the Bill. He would go through clauses 1 to 21 and the amendment to the long title of the Act very quickly as the Committee had discussed and agreed to all the amendments. The majority of the amendments were consequential. (NB: Mr Du Preez’s voice was indistinct at times and he skipped clauses where he felt he had nothing to say.)

Clause 1: Dealt with the amendment to the Definitions and Objects of the Act.

Clause 3: Addition to the sentence on page 3 line 8.

Clause 4: Explained by the Committee rejected the clause and provided a new clause.

Clause 5: Explained by the Committee rejected the clause and provided a new clause.

Clause 7: Contained consequential amendments and subsections 4, 5, and 6 had been added to the clause.

New Clause: New clause 10: It contained a new provision dealing with sections 44(B) and 44(C).

Clause 10: Correction of the numbering – clause 11 becomes 12.

Clause 12: Renumbering – clause 12 becomes 13.

Clause 14: Renumbering – replace 14 with 15.

Clause 15: Amendments had been effected.

Clause 16: Renumbering – replace 16 with 17 and the insertion of 2(B)

Clause 17: Renumbering - replace 17 with 18.

Clause 18: Clause rejected and replaced with “Substitution of section 54 of Act 32 of 2007.”

Clause 19: Renumbering - replace 19 with 20.

New Clause: The following would be the new clause 21- Amendment of the Long title of the Act.

Clause 20: Renumbering - replace 20 with 22.

Clause 21: Renumbering - replace 21 with 23. Replace 2020 with 2021. Amendment of the index of the principal Act. Amendment of the long title of the Bill.

The Committee had no comments.

Resolution

The Chairperson put the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences and Related Matters) Amendment Act Amendment Bill with the Memorandum of Objects to the Committee.

Dr W Newhoudt-Druchen (ANC) moved for the adoption of the Bill.

Adv S Swart (ACDP) seconded the motion for the adoption of the Bill and the Memorandum.

Adv G Breytenbach (DA) did not disagree. She was sure that the DA would support but she reserved the right of the DA.

The Criminal Law (Sexual Offences and Related Matters) Amendment Act Amendment Bill with the Memorandum of Objects was adopted by the Committee with one reservation and no objections.

Portfolio Committee Report on the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences and Related Matters) Amendment Act Amendment Bill

The Chairperson stated that he would take report as read by the Committee Members as it had been circulated. He called for corrections.

Dr Newhoudt-Druchen checked the date on the Report which had been changed from 28 May 2021 to 29 May 2021.

The Committee Secretary explained that, as the Report was being adopted on 29 May 2021, the date had to be changed to the date of adoption.

Mr du Preez referred to page 2, paragraph 6 bullet 3 of the report: the phrase “a sexual offenders’” was incorrect. He corrected it to “a sexual offender’s”.

Resolution:

The Chairperson put the Portfolio Committee Report on the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences and Related Matters) Amendment Act Amendment Bill to the Committee for adoption as corrected.

Dr Newhoudt-Druchen proposed the adoption of the report as amended. Ms N Maseko-Jele (ANC) seconded the proposal.

Adv Breytenbach did not disagree but stated that the DA reserved its position.

Ms Y Yako (EFF) also did not disagree but stated that the EFF reserved its position.

The Committee adopted the Portfolio Committee Report on the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences and Related Matters) Amendment Act Amendment Bill with amendments and with two reservations and no objections.

Remarks by the Chairperson and Committee Members

The Chairperson thanked everyone who had been involved in getting the Bill to that stage. He thanked the officials at the DoJ&CD and their managers.

Adv Swart thanked the team including the Department, the Office of Constitutional and Legal Services (OCLS) and those members of the public that had made comments. It had been a massive, massive Bill and he hoped it would begin to address gender violence, although much would depend on the implementation. He thanked Mr Du Preez and was pleased that Mr du Preez had recovered from his illness. The Committee had to ensure that the Department and law enforcement were given the necessary resources.

Adv Breytenbach thanked everyone and suggested that the Committee send a letter to the Department and OCLS, thanking the officials for their hard work.

The Chairperson agreed and thanked Dr Loots and the OCLS for their help and legal advice. He thanked the NGOs that had participated in the development of the Bill. They had made SA proud.

Mr du Preez requested that he be excused as he had to secure a replacement for his phone.

The Chairperson indicated that he would agree to anything that Mr du Preez requested.

Mr du Preez thanked the Chairperson and the Committee for assisting him so well during the process.

Presentation of the Domestic Violence Act Amendment Bill

Adv Sarel Robbertse, State Law Advisor, DoJ&CD, presented the re-drafted Bill. He noted that the cover of the Bill had changed to indicate that it was a re-draft by the Portfolio Committee.

Clause 1: Dealt with the arrangement of sections in the Act.

Clause 2: Substituted for section 1 of the Act and provided for definitions. It clarified the position of third parties used to commit domestic violence and the application of the Protection of Harassment Act.

Clause 3: Insertion of sections 2A and 3A. It dealt with arrest by a peace officer without a warrant and assistance that needed to be provided to the complainant.

Clause 5: Inserted new section 3A that dealt with the powers of the police to enter a private residence.

Clause 6: Substituted section 4 and dealt with the application for a protection order.

Clause 7: Inserted a new section 4A to provide for Domestic Violence Safety Monitoring Notices. Subsection 12 dealt with national Instructions and the Committee had determined that the Commissioner of Police would consult with the DG of DoJ&CD and not with the Minister of DoJ&CD.

Clause 8 – Substituted section 5 of the Act. It dealt with the consideration of applications for protection orders.

Adv Robbertse informed the Committee that he had added a paragraph stating that a complainant had to be informed by the clerk of a court if an application for a protection order was not issued.

The Chairperson called for comments. The Committee supported the insertion.

Clause 9: Inserted section 5A, 5B and 5C in the Act, dealing with attendance of witnesses; the obligations of an electronic communications service provider; more than one application for a protection order or reciprocal applications. No amendments.

Clause 10: Substituted section 6, dealing with the issuing of the final protection order. No amendments.

Clause 11: Insertion of section 6A dealing with integrated electronic repository for domestic violence protection orders.

Clause 12: Amended section 7. The previous day, he had made an error when referring the Committee to the belts and braces provision to limit particulars exposed in an enquiry as presented in section 5. The correct reference should be section 11. He then found that in his correction of the error, he had left out the word “section”. The Chairperson requested that he make the correction immediately while the document was on the screen so that when Members voted on the Bill, it was actually correct. He did so.

Clause 13: Amended section 8 that dealt with the warrant of arrest and the powers of a police official to arrest a respondent who contravened a protection order.

Clause 14: Substituted section 9 and addressed the seizure of weapons. There had been no recent amendments.

Clause 15: Substituted section 10. No changes.

Clause 16: Amendment of section 11 of the Act, i.e. the confidentiality provision.

Clause 17: Amended section 12. No amendments.

Clause 18: Amendment of section 13 of the Act, i.e. service of documents. No amendments.

Clause 19: Substitution of section 15 of the Act, i.e. Orders as to costs of service and direction. The Committee had the previous day determined that the respondent was liable for costs relating to the obtaining of information as required: subsection (2) (b), (c) and (d). He had added a subsection referring to “service or any process or documents” where the respondent was the guilty party and any costs had arisen because of his conduct.

The Chairperson requested comments from Members.

Adv Swart agreed but suggested that a change of the order of (c) and (d) was required, from a drafting perspective as (c) referred to section 5B(7) and (d) referred to section 5B(6).

The proposed reversal of order was approved by the Committee.

Adv Robbertse made the change immediately.

Clause 20: Substituted section 16 and provided for appeals and reviews.

Clause 21: Amended section 17 dealing with offences.

Clause 22: Amended section 18, indicating the obligations of the National Prosecution Authority as well as the instructions that the National Commissioner of Police could issue in respect of the Act.

Clause 23: Insertion of sections 18A and 18B. 18A addressed directives to be issued by the clerk of the court and 18B dealt with directives to be issued by other Departments.

The previous day he had been requested to put in a statutory limitation to ensure that the directives and regulations were implemented timeously. Adv Robbertse stated that he had created a separate clause for that and would come to it later.

Clause 24: Substitution of section 19 of the Act. It dealt with the delegations to the Minister to make regulations to give effect to the Act. The Minister had to submit the regulations to Parliament.

Referring to clause 24, Adv Swart noted that the Minister was to “submit” the regulations to Parliament. Did that mean that Parliament had to approve the regulations, or was it simply a submission by the Minister? If Parliament had to approve, it would lead to delays, so he was not taking a position but looking for clarity.

Adv Robbertse replied that the intention of the clause was just to submit the regulations to Parliament. It did not amount to approval.

The Chairperson stated that it was a serious point that Adv Swart had raised. Was the Committee happy with that clause requiring a submission only as it was one of the serious decisions that Parliament had to make?

Adv Swart said that the difficulty regarding the submitting of the Bill was that Parliament had very few sittings scheduled for later in the year, and while approval would be good, the delay could be extensive and the matter was urgent.

The Chairperson understood but it was one of Parliament’s major constitutional roles and he wanted the Committee to be sure that it understood and approved the clause.

Mr X Nqola (ANC) said that it was an important aspect but he was comfortable because the regulations had to be submitted prior to the gazetting of the regulations so Parliament had time to address it. He did not want the regulations to be delayed.

Mr W Horn (DA) stated that the difficulty with obliging the Minister to submit the regulations prior to publication was that it did not define the role to be played by Parliament. He agreed, in principle, with Mr Nqola that it should give Parliament an opportunity to express a view if there were something problematic with the regulations but a specific role for Parliament needed to be defined or the regulations might be submitted to Parliament and not addressed as Parliament did not have a specific role. He did not disagree that it could be problematic for Parliament always to approve regulations before publication and implementation but to simply say “submission” could create a possible loophole.

The Chairperson noted no disagreement but Mr Horn had questioned the rationale for stating that it had to be submitted.

Adv Robbertse surmised that he could put in the word “consideration”, but, as Adv Swart had pointed out, there would be delays as Parliament would have to be briefed, etc. However, he agreed that that still did not describe the role of Parliament and what Parliament should do. He pointed out that regulations already in place, relating to other Bills, had been made timeously. The Minister could just table the regulations in the National Assembly (NA) and the National Council of Province (NCOP). Current wording was adequate and if there was a problem, Parliament could raise objections.

Adv Swart in did not understand what “consideration” would mean. It would possibly require a Committee meeting to consider the regulations. Parliament could not consider regulations, but only accept or reject. Was it envisaged that there would be substantial regulations? He understood the Chairperson’s point about the constitutional obligations but when compared to the time pressure, it constituted a conundrum. He did not want the Committee to be accused of delaying the regulations. Was that the only reference to regulations in the Bill? Perhaps an informal arrangement could be made that the Committee had a look at the regulations before they were gazetted. He found it a difficult decision because in the normal course, he would want Parliament to have a briefing on the regulations.

The Chairperson pointed out that several Committees would have to be involved in such considerations.

It appeared to Dr Newhoudt-Druchen that the wording “submitted to Parliament prior to publication” meant the regulations would have to wait for Parliament to consider them before they could be gazetted. She agreed theoretically but the clause clearly stated the Minister still had to wait for Parliament to consider it. Perhaps “at the first sitting of Parliament” should be added.

Ms Christine Silkstone, Committee Researcher, stated that she was aware that, in the past, legislation had given Parliament a specific amount of time to approve, following which it would be deemed approved. That might be an appropriate mechanism to balance out the two positions. It provided a middle ground.

Adv Breytenbach liked the suggestion by the Researcher as she believed one should not deviate from constitutional procedure as it set a dangerous precedent.

Ms Kalay Pillay, Deputy Director-General: Legislative Development, DoJ&CD, agreed that Parliament could be given a set period of time to approve. She added that the Legal Practice Act said that regulations had to be tabled in Parliament for approval. She did not believe that simply stating that the regulations had to be considered would be adequate in terms of the requirements of that Act, but she would leave it in the hands of the Committee.

Mr Horn recalled that in the feedback from the Department the previous day, in response to the fact that Parliament would have very few sittings for the rest of the year owing to the Local Government elections, an official had said that the drafting of the regulations would go beyond the end of the year. He agreed that a precedent should not be set by requiring merely a “considering” of the regulations. One should not make a law dealing with the following four months. Besides, as the Committee had now set a precedent to sit on a Saturday morning, that should enable the Committee to deal with the regulations on a speedy basis!

Ms Ina Botha, Director: Secondary Legislation, DoJ&CD, requested an opportunity to speak on the regulations. She confirmed that the phrase “submitted to Parliament prior to publication” occurred in many pieces of legislation approved by Parliament. In other pieces of legislation, the Bill stated very pertinently that the regulations were to be submitted for approval. She could assure the Committee that the approach was common.

Ms Botha was fully aware of the role of Parliament in making law but on some occasions a problem was created when regulations could not be changed without the approval of Parliament. For example, in the case of the Child Justice Regulations, the approval of Parliament had been required to change a regulation, even though, in that case, it had been only a technical amendment. That was a waste of Parliament’s time. She said that requiring the approval of Parliament begged the question of why the regulations were delegated to the Executive in the first place. She agreed with Adv Swart in respect of his concern about the delay. What would happen if, as in the case of the Child Justice Act, if Parliament did not approve the regulations? She pleaded with the Committee to allow the Executive to carry out the mandate given it by Parliament.

Ms Botha added that the Committee had recently approved the Promotion of Access to Information Amendment Bill in which it was stated that the regulations were to be “submitted to Parliament prior to publication”.

The Chairperson stated that he heard Ms Botha, but Mr Horn had raised the point that the regulations would take at least five months to draft, so the matter would not require action until the following year. He asked Adv Swart for his views, bearing in mind that the regulations would not be ready within the next few months while Parliament was in recess for the Local Government elections.

Adv Swart regretted raising the matter. On checking the principal Act, he noted that the Bill contained the same words as the principal Act, i.e. that the regulations had to be submitted to Parliament. He suggested that the Committee retain the words in the principal Act: “submit to Parliament prior to publication”. That would ensure consistency and avoid delays.

Mr Horn took on board what Adv Swart and Ms Botha had said but the other side of the coin would be placing an obligation on the Executive to complete the regulations within a specific timeframe. Speaking of Parliament’s functions, oversight was another important role. When delegating the drafting of secondary legislation to the Executive, Parliament should consider putting a specific time period because Members knew that laws were passed and the regulations were not drafted in a reasonable timeframe, as in the case of the Maintenance Act which had been passed some years ago and was still not operationalised.

Mr Horn noted that Mr Du Preez had flighted clause 26: Period within which directives and regulations must be submitted to Parliament. Clause 26(2)(a) stated that regulations should be submitted within 12 months:

“26(2)(a)The Minister must, in terms of section 19(2) of the Domestic Violence Act, 1998, submit regulations that are necessary or required to be made for the proper implementation and administration of that Act to Parliament within 12 months from the date of the publication of this Act in terms of section 81 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996.”

Mr Horn noted the timeframe but added that, in going forward, the Committee should consider its role in legislation. It was the role of the Executive to operationalise and not to determine legislation, so if the requirement was simply to operationalise legislation, it could be delegated to the Executive, but when it went beyond operationalising, Parliament should be involved.

The Chairperson asked Mr Horn for confirmation that he approved the use of the word “submit”.

Mr Horn did not like the wording of “submit” but, in the light of the inclusion of a 12-month timeframe, he would live with it.

The Committee agreed to accept the clause as it stood on the screen (“submitted to Parliament prior to publication thereof in the Gazette”(24(2)(a)).

Clause 23 (additional discussion relating to clause 23)

Adv Robbertse stated that the previous day he had been requested to make provision for a specific time period to ensure that directives and the regulations were issued timeously. He had to make a further amendment to section 18B. In terms of 18B(3), he had placed an obligation on Directors-General to also submit the directives to Parliament before they took effect. He noted that the Minister had an obligation to submit directives to the Clerk of the Court before those took effect, as per 18A(2).

Clause 25: Amendment of Laws: The amendments were contained in the Schedule.

Clause 26: New clause: Period within which directives and regulations must be submitted to Parliament

Adv Robbertse informed the Committee that he had inserted the additional clause to accommodate the timeframes within which directives and regulations were to be submitted to Parliament. The timeframe was within 12 months from the date of the publication of the Act, i.e. that was once the President had signed the Bill into law. That would prevent a delay in the implementation of the Act.

“Section 26.(1)(a) The directives referred to in sections 18A and 18B of the Domestic Violence Act, 1998 (Act No. 116 of 1998), must be submitted to Parliament within 12 months from the date of the publication of this Act in terms of section 81 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996.”

Adv Robbertse added that he had included 26(1)(b) to ensure oversight by Parliament:

“26(1)(b)A Director-General who is in terms of section 18A or 18B of the Domestic Violence Act, 1998, responsible for the issuing of directives must, in the event of a failure to submit the directives to Parliament, within 12 months from the date of the publication of this Act, report such failure and the reasons for such failure to Parliament before the end of the month following upon the month during which the 12 month period expires and thereafter at such intervals as Parliament may determine.”

26(1)(c) avoided any interpretation problems that might consider a that after 12 months a directive would have no validity. The paragraph stated clearly that a delay in submission did not affect the validity of a directive.

Section 26(2)(a), (b) and (c) placed the same obligations on the Minister in terms of the timeframe, oversight provisions and validity.

The Committee accepted clause 26.

Clause 27: Short title. That clause had been redrafted to ensure that clause 26 was immediately operationalised on promulgation of the Act.

Schedule: The Schedule had been approved the previous day.

Mr Robbertse had completed the presentation of the Bill.

Resolution

The Chairperson put the Domestic Violence Act Amendment Bill to the Committee for approval.

Mr Nqola moved for the adoption of the Bill. Ms Maseko-Jele seconded the motion for adoption.

The DA, the EFF and the ACDP reserved their rights.

The Committee adopted the Domestic Violence Act Amendment Bill with three reservations and no objections.

Portfolio Committee Report on the Domestic Violence Act Amendment Bill

The Chairperson stated that he would take the Report as read. There were no corrections to the Report.

Dr Newhoudt-Druchen moved for the adoption of the Report. Ms N Maseko-Jele (ANC) seconded the motion for adoption.

The DA, the EFF and the ACDP reserved their rights.

The Committee adopted the Portfolio Committee Report on the Domestic Violence Act Amendment Bill with three reservations and no objections.

Remarks by the Chairperson and Members

The Chairperson told Adv Robbertse that the Committee was seriously indebted to him, especially because he had been expected to meet impossible deadlines, even though he had worked on the most complex of the GBV Bills. He also extended his gratitude to officials and parliamentary staff for the hard work. He recognised that everyone needed to spend time with their families and to relax but he thanked everyone for attending the meeting on a Saturday to finalise the work on the Bill. He recognised that it had taken many Saturdays of work and not just the one Saturday. He thanked the Members for their commitment and their team work in getting the Bill processed. The country could be very proud to have public representatives such as themselves. He thanked members of civil society for their involvement; they had shown that democracy worked and that they were members of an active citizenry who had enriched the legislation. He also thanked the members of the public who had been supportive of the process.

Dr Newhoudt-Druchen thanked Adv Robbertse and his team for the hard work and for being so patient, especially when she got confused. She also thanked civil society as well as members of public. The Committee had needed to make a lot of amendments to make lives better for women and children. She thanked her colleagues for their input.

Adv Swart echoed the sentiments of the Chairperson and Dr Newhoudt-Druchen in thanking Adv Robbertse, as well as Ms Ina Botha and Dr Barbara Loots of the OCLS in Parliament. He had worked with them for many, many years but they had outdone themselves with that piece of work. It was such a necessary piece of legislation as so much gender violence took place in the domestic environment. Everyone had worked very well together.

He thanked the Committee staff for their work and the IT staff for facilitating the online meetings. He wished that everyone was in Parliament so that they could all go out to lunch together. He thanked civil society for the helpful way in which they had supported the process. Adv Swart also remembered the role that the late Committee Member Jacqui Mofokeng, who had played a significant role in working on the Bill. He thanked his colleagues for the collegial way in which they had worked.

Adv Breytenbach echoed the gratitude and sentiments expressed and agreed with all. She requested that a letter be sent to the DG of the DoJ&CD expressing those sentiments. She thanked the Chairperson for steering the Committee through the process so very competently.

The Chairperson thanked the Committee staff and the Research staff that had worked hard and had not enjoyed weekends for a long time.

He also expressed his gratitude to Parliamentary Legal Advisors, Adv Siviwe Njikela and Dr Barbara Loots, and their colleagues in the Constitutional and Legal Services Office. Dr Loots had continued to work despite her ill-health the previous year. He also thanked the members of the media who had covered the issue of GBV extensively, playing a constructive role for a society that was in pain.

Ms Maseko-Jele also extended her gratitude to all. It was a good job in honour of Jacqui Mofokeng. She thanked “Team Justice”.

The Chairperson hoped Ms Mofokeng would be honoured in Parliament when the Bill was being debated. He presented a short eulogy on Ms Mofokeng, recognising her passion, dependability, her humility, her humour, warmth and love. For her, humility was a strength. The Bills would be passed in her honour and also in honour of Adv Mohamed who had started the process and had laid the foundation. They would be honoured during the debate.

The Chairperson noted that the following week the Committee would have to deal with several sets of minutes and suggested that the Committee finalise the report of the Portfolio Committee on the appointment of Commissioners to the South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) before closing the meeting. Members would be extremely busy the following week.

Portfolio Committee Report on the appointment of Commissioners to the South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC)

The Chairperson presented the report and took it as read.

Resolution

The Chairperson presented the Report on the appointment of Commissioners to the South African Human Rights Commission to the Committee for adoption.

Dr Newhoudt-Druchen moved for the adoption of the Report. Mr Q Dyantyi (ANC) seconded the motion of adoption.

The DA, EFF and the ACDP reserved their positions.

The Committee adopted the Report of the Portfolio Committee on the appointment of Commissioners to the South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) with three reservations and no objections.

Concluding remarks

The Chairperson wished everyone well over the recess and entreated everyone to relax and re-boot and to come back refreshed and rejuvenated. He was indebted to all of them.

The meeting was adjourned.