Questions and Replies

Reply:

1. No. I have been informed that the Magistrates Commission has not received any formal complaint against Magistrate HJ Venter.

2. No steps were considered necessary, as the prosecutor was not deemed to have breached any guidelines or legal prescripts. Applications for cell phone data in terms of section 205 of the Criminal Procedure Act, Act 51 of 1977, as amended, are based on an affidavit from the investigating officer motivating why cell phone data is needed in respect of the number(s) and period(s) stated in the affidavit.

 

Reply:

1.Applications for cell phone data in terms of section 205 of the Criminal Procedure Act, Act 51 of 1977, as amended, are based on an affidavit from the investigating officer motivating why cell phone data is needed in respect of the number(s) and period(s) stated in the affidavit.

The prosecutor also considers the affidavit before submitting it to the judicial officer, who is the final and independent arbiter on the application. The Magistrate considers the application based on the affidavit but may also request that further information be provided and order that information not relevant to the case should not be used for any purpose There are thus three safeguards, in addition to the processes which may follow as part of a criminal prosecution which permits the accused to challenge the admission of evidence.

2. Yes. I have been informed that judges and magistrates receive continuous training and that applications in terms of section 205 of the Criminal Procedure Act resorts under the Criminal Law and Procedure Curriculum of the South African Judicial Education Institute.

3. No specified period was included in the question. It should be noted that the National Prosecuting Authority does not specifically require prosecutors to record the number of applications for cell phone data, and whether or not these were successful.

Reply:

1. (a) Yes.

    (b) The Regulation of Interception of Communications and Provision of

Communication–related Information Act (RICA), 2002 (Act No. 70 of 2002) has been earmarked for revision and appropriate amendments. This is as a result of a number of requests for amendments that have been received from various quarters and also as a result of concerns regarding the implementation of the RICA which have been brought to the attention of the Department. These requests relate, among others, to the following:

1. the need to enhance governance, transparency and accountability mechanisms in order to oversee the interception of communications;
2. the need to give further consideration to the compulsory registration of SIM-cards and the regulation thereof; and
3. the broadening of RICA to cater for the combatting of cybercrime, making provision for other forms of electronic surveillance and regulating the use of remote access tools to investigate crime.

The Department is still in an investigative and initial drafting phase. A draft Bill is not yet available. Discussions with some of the law enforcement agencies regarding certain proposed amendments are under way. Public consultation will follow once the Department has processed the draft Bill through the required internal processes.

2. Yes. Section 15 of the RICA deals with the availability of other procedures for obtaining real-time or archived communication-related information. In terms of this section, the availability of the procedures in respect of the provision of real-time or archived communication-related information provided for in sections 17 and 19 of the RICA (applications to the interception judge for real-time communication-related and archived communication related-directions) does not preclude obtaining such information in respect of any person in accordance with a procedure prescribed in any other Act. However, in terms of section 15 of the RICA any real-time or archived communication-related information which is obtained in terms of such other Act may not be obtained on an ongoing basis.

In this regard, section 205 of the Criminal Procedure Act (CPA), 1977 (Act No. 51 of 1977) is relevant. Section 205 of the CPA deals with the power of a judge, regional court magistrate or magistrate, upon the request of a Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) or a public prosecutor authorized thereto by the DPP, to require the attendance before a judge, regional court magistrate or magistrate, for examination by the DPP or the public prosecutor authorized thereto by the DPP, of any person who is likely to give material or relevant information as to any alleged offence, whether or not it is known by whom the offence was committed. If such person furnishes that information to the satisfaction of the DPP or the public prosecutor concerned prior to the date on which he or she is required to appear before a judge, regional court magistrate or magistrate, he or she is under no further obligation to appear before a judge, regional court magistrate or magistrate.

The Department is aware of concerns relating to the application of section 205 of the CPA in order to obtain real-time or archived communication-related information. Since section 205 of the CPA can be used to obtain material and relevant information regarding any alleged offence and not only information relating to communication as provided for in the RICA, the Department will consider amendments to section 15 of the RICA together with the amendments referred to in question 1 above.

Reply:

a) I have been informed that the total number of applications for cellphone data in terms of Section 19 of the Regulation of Interception of Communications and Provision of Communication-Related Information Act, Act 70 of 2002 that were submitted in the period 1 January 2014 to 31 March 2017 is 866.

b) (i) Granted: 866

(ii) Declined: 0

Reply:

a) The Department of Justice and Constitutional Development has neither procured any services from Decolonisation Foundation nor made any payment to Decolonization Foundation

Currently, in the context of its mandate, the Department does not anticipate any dealings or engagement with the Foundation.

b) The National Prosecuting Authority, Special Investigating Unit and Legal Aid South Africa have informed me that they have neither procured anything from, nor made any payments to the Decolonization Foundation.

c) The office of the Chief Justice has not conducted any business with the Decolonization Foundation.

d) The Department of Correctional Services has not conducted any business with the Decolonization Foundation.

Reply:

1. (a) The police has submitted the docket to the prosecution on 9 May 2017.

(b) There is still a considerable amount of investigation outstanding, and further investigation is currently underway.

(c) Due to the fact that there is still a lot of investigation outstanding, on 17 May 2017 the prosecution postponed the matter in court to 11 July 2017, to allow further investigation. The accused were released on bail.

2. The prosecutor examined the docket and provided further guidance for police investigation.

Reply:

1. No, the Department of Basic Education has not requested assistance from the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development (DoJ&CD) to obtain the list of sexual offenders. It must be noted that section 52 of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences and Related Matters) Amendment Act, 2007 (Act No 23 of 2007) requires the confidentiality and non-disclosure of any information contained in the National Register for Sex Offenders (NRSO). The Registrar of the National Register for Sex Offender is only allowed to disclose information from the register upon receipt of an application that gives effect to the provisions of Chapter 6 of the Act or in response to a court order to that effect. No such application or court order has been received by the Registrar concerning the DBE’s request.

2) No, as the Department of Justice & Constitutional Development has not received any application from the Department of Basic Education for the disclosure of certain information contained in the National Register for Sex Offenders. As earlier indicated, the NRSO is kept in a confidential manner, which essentially means that it can only be accessed by way of an application to the Registrar of the National Register for Sex Offenders by the following category of persons:-

(i) a Relevant Authority in terms of section 48(1) of the Act ;

(ii) an employee in respect of her own particulars;

(iii) a person applying for a license or approval to manage or operate any entity -section 47(2) of the Act;

(iv) a person applying to become a foster parent –section 48 (2) of the Act; and

(v) any person applying in respect of his or her own particulars.

It is therefore important to note that should the Department of Basic Education wishes to ascertain whether or not the names of teachers appear in the National Register of Sex Offenders, it must apply to the Registrar of the NRSO for a prescribed certificate, as required by the Act.

 

Reply:

a) what is the name of each such facility

• Kgoši Mampuru II Management Area
• Johannesburg Management Area
• Durban Westville Management Area
• St Albans Management Area
• Pollsmoor Management Area
• Modderbee Management Area
• Waterval Management Area
• Krugersdorp Management Area
• Groenpunt Management Area

(b) what is the name of each such facility,

Kgoši Mampuru II Management Area:

• Female
• Central male
• Local male
• Maximum male
• ODI
• Atteridgeville

Johannesburg Management Area

• Female
• Medium A male
• Medium B male
• Medium C Male

Durban Westville Management Area

• Durban Juvenile
• Female
• Medium A male
• Medium B male
• Medium C male
• Umzinto

St Albans Management Area

• Maximum male
• Medium A male
• Medium B male
• Port Elizabeth
• Patensie

Pollsmoor Management Area

• Female
• Admission maximum male
• Medium A male
• Medium B male
• Medium C male

Modderbee Management Area

• Male
• Devon male
• Nigel male

Waterval Management Area

• Ekuseni
• Medium A
• Medium B
• Utrecht
• Newcastle

Krugersdorp Management Area

• Male
• Youth

Groenpunt Management Area

• Maximum
• Medium
• Youth

(c) on what basis was each contract awarded,

• All bids received were evaluated and adjudicated per Management Area in accordance with the requirements stipulated in the terms of reference document, the evaluation criteria stipulated in the special conditions of contract and in accordance with the Preferential Procurement Policy Framework Act (PPPFA) and its regulations.

• The contracts were awarded according to PPPFA Regulations of 2011 paragraph 6. (5) which stipulates the following “Subject to regulation 7, the contract must be awarded to the tenderer who scores the highest total number of points”.

• The successful bidders scored the highest total number of points on price and BBBEE per Management Area and were awarded as such.

(d) what is the

(i) duration and

• Thirty six (36) months except for Groenpunt Management Area which is twenty four (24) months.

(ii) total cost of each contract and

• Kgoši Mampuru II Management Area R79 570 023.17 annual cost (Bosasa Operations (Pty) Ltd

• Johannesburg Management Area R87 761 625.66 annual cost (Bosasa Operations (Pty) Ltd

• Durban Westville Management Area R98 116 612.24 annual cost (Bosasa Operations (Pty) Ltd

• St Albans Management Area R63 212 769.42 annual cost (Bosasa Operations (Pty) Ltd

• Pollsmoor Management Area R79 184 387.50 annual cost (Bosasa Operations (Pty) Ltd

• Modderbee Management Area R49 444 048.90 annual cost (Bosasa Operations (Pty) Ltd

• Waterval Management Area R44 740 885.22 annual cost (Xantium Trading 471 (Pty) Ltd T/A C3 Food Services)

• Krugersdorp Management Area R25 202 555.15 annual cost (Bosasa Operations (Pty) Ltd

• Groenpunt Management Area R38 932 371.20 annual cost (Ukweza Holdings (Pty) Ltd

(e) What are the

(i) names and

• Bosasa Operations (Pty) Ltd
• Ukweza Holdings (Pty) Ltd
• Xantium Trading 471 (Pty) Ltd T/A C3 Food Services

(ii) addresses of each catering service contractor?

• Bosasa Operations (Pty) Ltd: Mogale Business Park, Windsor Road, Luipaardsvlei, Mogale City, 1739, Gauteng

• Ukweza Holdings (Pty) Ltd: 161 Lynnwood Road, Brooklyn, Pretoria, 0011

• Xantium Trading 471 (Pty) Ltd T/A C3 Food Services: 1st Floor, Amdec House Steenberg Office Park, Silverwood Close, Tokai, 7945

Reply:

A. South African Human Rights Commission

1. The position of Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) is currently vacant. The post became vacant on 1 October 2016 as a result of the then CEO’s resignation. The position has been vacant for a period of six (6) months.
2. The position was advertised on 16 October 2016 in the Sunday Times newspaper and on the SAHRC’s website. The recruitment process could only be commenced in January 2017 after the commencement of the term of office of Commissioners. It is projected for the successful candidate to be appointed effectively from 1 June 2017.
3. Two employees are currently employed in acting capacities, which have been necessitated by the CEO’s vacancy, namely: the Chief Financial Officer (CFO) as Acting CEO, and Finance Manager as Acting CFO, both from 1 October 2016 to date. The Acting CEO has applied for the CEO’s position.

B) The Legal Aid South

1. Legal Aid South Africa does not have any position of a Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer and/or Chief Operating Officer that is currently vacant. These posts were filled as at 31 March 2017.
2. Not applicable
3. Not applicable

C) Special Investigating Unit

1. The Special Investigating Unit (SIU) does not have any vacancy in the positions of the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer. The SIU does not have a position of the Chief Operating Officer.
2. Not applicable
3. Not applicable

D) Department of Correctional Services

1. (a) Yes

(b) Yes

(c) No

(i) Position of the CEO: Inspecting Judge: Has been vacant since 2011/05/01

COO: Since 2015/02/28

 

CEO Post

(ii) The delay in filling the post is attributed to the demise of Judge Sikweyiya and the process of appointing Judge Westhuizen.

 

COO Post

The Department commenced with a process of reviewing the organizational structure in line with the new service delivery model and as a result the process of filling the post was suspended.

 

2.  CEO: (a) Yes and (b)it is anticipated that it will be filled within 90 days

     COO: No

     CFO: Filled

3. (a) CEO: One person has been appointed in acting capacity

       COO: None

        CFO: Filled

  (b) CEO: 03 years

       COO: None

        CFO: Filled

 (c) CEO: Yes

      COO: None

     CFO: Filled

Reply:

1. Yes

(a) 27 December 2015

(b) Sunday Times and Departmental website

2. 68 Applications

3 (a) 7

3 (b) Names, relevant qualification and experience are reflected below:

 

	Name	Relevant Qualification	Previous Experience
1	Mathabathe P M	Matric Certificate Master’s Degree in Criminology BA Honours (Penelogy) Diploma in Correctional Services	8 years Deputy Director (Parliament of South Africa) Lecture  University of Fort Hare Research Assistant ( UNISA)
2	Moodley S	Matric Certificate Masters in Social Development BA Social Work DCS Management Development Programme	4 years Deputy Director Offender Assessment Directorate Risk Profile Management: Branch incarceration and Corrections (Department of Correctional Services)
3	Naidoo R	Matric Certificate Bachelor of Paedogogics (Arts) Bachelor of Education Masters of Arts ( Social Behaviour Studies in HIV/AIDS) Masters Diploma in Human Resource Management Programme in Project Management	Department of Correctional Services (1996/04/01-current) Department of Education ( Educator Grade 9-12)
4	Nhlapo TMS	Matric Certificate Masters of Development and Management. BA Honours Development & Management National Diploma in Correctional Service Management Certificate in Professional Skill Development	Department of Correctional Services ( 1986- to date) Groenpunt Maximum as Centre Coordinator Corrections 2009 - current Groenpunt Maximum Correctional Centre (2005-2009) as Centre Coordinator Operational Support Harrismith Correctional Centre (2001-2005) Head of Correctional Centre
5	Nyongwane JK	Matric Certificate B. Com(Business Management and Industrial Psychology) National Diploma in Nursing	Department of Correctional Services (2005 to date)as Deputy Director ( Regional Coordinator Health Care Services ) 1997- 2005 Assistant Director  Provincial Head Health Care Services in Department of Correctional Services 1990-1997 as Lieutenant in Department of Correctional Services 1981-1990 Custodial officer
6	Pienaar WJ	Matric Certificate B-Tech in Correctional Services Management National Diploma in Correctional Services Management Certificate in Project management	2007 to date Department of Correctional Services (Deputy Director Supervision services) July 2002 till 31 October 2007 (Assistant director Correctional Supervision) 01 June1995 till 30 June 2002 Head Monitoring (Acting Head Community Corrections : Port Shepstone Management Area) 01 March 1993 -31 May 1995(Chairperson of Institutional Committee. 01 January 1991 – 28 February 1993 ( Reception /Records Clerk)
7	Serakalala V	Matric Certificate BA Honours in Political Science BA in Public Administration and Political Studies	2014 to date Deputy Director: SDI in Department of Correctional Services. 2005 / 2014 Deputy Director Policy Alignment in Department of Correctional Services 2002/2005 Public Relation Officer  at National Council of the Blind

4 (a) The panel was determined based in line with the Public Service Regulation, 2016 and the departmental delegation of authority as follows:

• Mr W Damons Acting CDC: Remand Detention (Chairperson)
• Mr E Khoza Acting CDC: Human Resources
• Ms TM Motlonye DC: Personal Corrections
• Ms DL Moeketsana HR Practitioner

4 (b) Basic criteria

• Basic criteria (Application form (Z83, internal) attached, Application form signed, SA Citizen, Criminal Record indication on Z83 or CV. Certification not older than 3 months, copy of certified ID and qualifications, CV attached if Z83 is not fully completed}.
• Degree in Public/Business Management or equivalent qualification
• 5 years Middle management experience in a similar environment.
• Valid driver’s licence (unless PWD)
• Employment Equity target: African Female, Coloured Females & Indian Female (Level 13)

Reply:

1. An order for the first and second respondents to vacate the property on or before 01 February 2015 was granted by the Judge on 01 August 2014.
2. No judgement was handed down in the matter. The record is available at the court.

 

Reply:

The matter was enrolled in the Motion roll and heard on the 28 March 2017.

a) The draft order filed by the applicant and agreed to by all parties, was granted by the judge and was made an order of court.

b) There is no judgement handed down in the matter. The order of the court was issued by the judge and provided to the parties on the 28 March 2017.

 

Reply:

1. With reference to my recent response to question no. 2718 in this regard, I wish to confirm that the matter is receiving Government’s attention. It is anticipated that the Cabinet will be approached during the current financial year (2017/18) with a recommendation.

2. No. As indicated in my response above, the methodology of using pre-existing legislation to give effect to subsequent treaty obligations was adopted in the case of South Africa’s ratification of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). This is in accordance with section 231(4) of the Constitution and widely accepted international practice.

Using this method, the substance of the ICESCR provisions can be deemed to be incorporated and are part of the South African law (if regard is had to relevant pre-existing legislation, regulations and codes on education, water, health, social security, housing, labour, amongst others). Furthermore the Bill of Rights entrenched in Chapter 2 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, draws its inspiration from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) and the two United Nations International Covenants on Civil and Political Rights as well as Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

Reply:

1. The matter which was investigated by SAPS is still under consideration by the National Prosecuting Authority.
2. The matter is under consideration of the Priority Crimes Litigation Unit (PCLU) of the NPA.
3. The names of potential witnesses and persons who have been questioned during the course and scope of this ongoing investigation cannot be disclosed.
4. It is regrettably not possible to provide a definitive date on which this investigation is expected to be concluded.

 

Reply:

1. Neither the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development (DoJ&CD) nor its entities (National Prosecuting Authority, Special Investigating Unit, the Office of the Chief Justice and Legal Aid South Africa) and the Department of Correctional Services (DCS) participated in the Dialogue with the President: Unpacking of the SONA 2017 on Radical Economic Transformation Implementation event hosted at the Oyster Box Hotel in Umhlanga, Durban, on 25 February 2017.
2. Neither the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development (DoJ&CD) and the Department of Correctional Services (DCS) nor its entities participated in the auction of the souvenirs or personal belongings of the President of the Republic, Mr Jacob G Zuma.

Reply:

1. The DPP South Gauteng has duly signed declarations of interest annually, since his appointment to this position in 2011/12, to date.
2. I am informed that, the person denies claims that he ever received any gifts, including golf clubs and bags, from Mr Brett Kebble. He states that he has never met Mr Kebble.
3. In light of the response in (2) above, this question does not arise.

Reply:

a) Make: Mercedes Benz GLE 350d SUV

b) Model: 2016

c) Price: R1 234 157.97

d) The vehicle was procured on 17 March 2016 via G Fleet as part of the RT57 Government Contract as approved by the Minister of Justice & Correctional Services on 27 January 2016.

Reply:

The National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) informed me that (the persons details furnished) are on special leave and they have not resumed their duties at the NPA. They were granted leave to appeal by the North Gauteng High Court and the President of the Republic communicated in public that he will await the conclusion of the court processes before considering whether any action is necessary. .

 

Reply:

1. The National Prosecuting Authority has informed me that the person was seconded to a Reference Group under the auspices of the Secretariat of the Minister of Police during the period 2014 to 2015, with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions for South Gauteng, Advocate Andrew Chauke and under former National Director of Public Prosecutions, Mr Mxolisi Nxasana. All costs were covered by the Secretariat of the Police, details of which can be obtained from the aforementioned Secretariat.
2. The Reference Group did not, at any, stage meet with the Honourable President of the Republic, Mr Jacob G. Zuma.
3. & (4) The required information is in the possession of the Secretariat of Police from whom same should be requested.

 

Reply:

Neither the National Prosecuting Authority nor the South African Police Services are aware of such a complaint.

Reply:

1. (a) The total number of persons who will be accompanying the Public Protector on her back to the People Road show:

1.	Gauteng	Johannesburg	11+2 Protectors
		Ratanga	12+2 Protectors
2.	Limpopo	Polokwane	11+2 Protectors
		Thohoyandou	09+2 Protectors
3.	Mpumalanga	Nelspruit	10+2 Protectors
		Ermelo	10+2 Protectors
4.	Kwazulu- Natal	Pietermaritzburg	7+1 Protectors
5.	Free State	Bloemfontein	10+1 Protectors
		Thaba Nchu	10+1 Protectors

(b) All but the officers from SAPS VIP Protection Services are permanently employed by PPSA.

(ii) None, The Public Protector make use of the outreach, communication and other support team of the institution to plan, manage and implement the programme.

(c) (1) Adv. Kevin Malunga, Deputy Director of Public Protector (DPP) – attended Gauteng and Free State visits.

He participate as the speaker during the programme, participates in dialogue with stakeholders, participate to take the public`s services delivery conduct failure complants and advises complainant on way forward.

(2) Mr Themba TC Dlamini, Chief Executive Officer (CEO) (attended Kwazulu Natal and Free State visits). He is the person responsible for the implementation of the overall programme, which is the target of the 2016/2017 Annual Performance Plan. The entire operations team reports to him.

(3) Mr Reginald Ndou or Mr Sello Mothupi, Provincial Investigations and Liaison. He is in charge of provincial operations and liaison (attended Gauteng, Mpumalanga and Limpopo visits)

(4) Ms Kgalalelo Masibi or Ms Lesedi Sekele, Complaints and Stakeholder management (Attended all). She is in charge of the roadshow as alternate project manager.

(5) Mr Oupa Segelwe, Head of Communication (attended all). He is in charge of communication, media, publicity and speechwriting.

(6) Ms Linda Molelekoa, acting Chief of Staff (attended all). She is in charge of Executive support for the Public Protector, Deputy Public

Protector and Chief Executive Officer.

(7) Mr Johnathan Malatjie, Head of Security (attended all). He is in charge of security arrangements and emergency services at the venues.

(8) Ms Noxolo Motloporo, Event Manager (attended all, except Kwazulu –Natal). She is charge of logistics, coordination and details of the events.

(9) Mr Salvation Mokgattlhe, Communication Officer, (attended all). He is charge of the video recordings, photography and social media

(10) Mr Andile Mpiyake, Outreach officer (attended all, except Kwazulu –Natal). He is in charge of floor management during outreach meetings, sound system branding and logistics.

(11) Ms Xoliswa Xosheni or Betty Ngubeni or Ephraim Kabinde, Personal Assistant (attended all)   . She/ He is in charge of the Public Protector`s administrative support 

(12) Mr William Mthotho and/or Teboho Mahlangu, SAPS VIP Protectors (attended all). He is in charge of Public Protector Safety and security.

2. (a) (i) by 31 March 2017 the Roadshow would have visited 11 towns and 6 (six)provinces.

(ii) Yes, the Roadshow will continue in the next financial year. Seven more towns and remaining provinces will be visited during April and May 2017.

(b) (i) (ii)

Province	Place	Date
Gauteng	Johannesburg City Hall- Provincial Legislature	16 February 2017
	Heildeberg- Ratanga Multi –Purpose Hall	17 February 2017
Limpopo	Polokwane (Lebowakgomo- Provincial Legislature)	27 February 2017
	Thohoyandou	28 February 2017
Mpumalanga	Nelspruit- Provincial Legislature	02 March 2017
	Ermelo	03 March 2017
Kwazulu- Natal	Escort Conference Centre & Pietermaritzburg- Provincial Legislature	15 March 2017
Free State	Bloemfontein- Provincial Legislature	16 March 2017
	Thaba Nchu	17 March 2017

North West	Mmabatho- Provincial Legislature	23 March 2017
	Vryburg, Madibogo Village	24 March 2017
Kwazulu Natal	Mkhambathini Municipality	04 April 2017
Northern Cape	Ritchie Town	19 April 2017
	Kimberley- Provincial Legislature	20 April 2017
Eastern Cape	Mqanduli	26 April 2017
Western Cape	Cape Town- Provincial Legislature	04 May 2017
	Fish Hoek Township	05 May 2017
Eastern Cape	Bisho-Provincial Legislature	16 May 2017

Reply:

No, services have been procured from and/or payments made to Mr. Mzwanele Manyi, the Progressive Professional Forum, Decolonization Fund or the Black Business Council.

Reply:

a) The budget allocation for the Public Protector `s Roadshow in the

(i) 2016/2017 financial year is: R1.5 million (for roll-out in all 9 provinces from the Complaints and Stakeholder management unit. From that amount each province was allocated R100 000 specifically for roadshow)

(ii) 2017/18 financial year is: not yet determined, awaiting approval from the National Assembly of the Strategic Plan, Annual Performance Plan and 2017/18 Budget.

b) In 2016/17 the budget was allocated as follows:

 (i) Travel: R200 000 (Flights)

 (ii) Accommodation: R100 000

 (iii) Venue and facilities hire: R900 000

 (iv) Advertising costs: N/A

 (v) Subsistence: R50 000

 (vi) Other: R70 000 (kilometer allowance for use of transport) and R180 000 (catering)

Reply:

The Honourable Member should note that Judge Yvonne Mokgoro was indeed the designated Judge during 2014/15, 2015/16 financial years until 31 May 2016, appointed in terms of the Regulation of Interceptions of Communications and Provision of Communication-Related Information Act, 70 of 2002 ("RICA").

Judge Makgoro has informed me that she has not to the best of her recollection authorized the State Security Agency to intercept the communications of any individuals said to be working for the South African Broadcasting Corporation during the periods mentioned in paragraph 1 above.

Following my response in paragraph 2 above, please note that questions (aa), (bb), (cc), (dd), and (ee) do not apply.

Reply:

Minister of Justice and Correctional Services

	Question (aaa) 2014/15	Make	Model	Price	Date purchased
(i)	Minister of Justice and Correctional Services	Mercedes Benz	ML 350 BlueTec (Black)	R716 500.00	16/8/2013
	Minister of Justice and Correctional Services	Mercedes Benz	ML 350 BlueTec(Silver)	R784 190.00	06/9/2013

	Question (bbb) 2015/16	Make	Model	Price	Date purchased
(i)	Minister of Justice and Correctional Services	Mercedes Benz	ML 350 (Black)	R716 500.00	As per table (aaa) – vehicle not replaced
	Minister of Justice and Correctional Services	Mercedes Benz	ML 350 (Silver)	R784 190.00	As per table (aaa) –vehicle not replaced

*No vehicles purchased since 1 April 2016 to date.

Deputy Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development

1. Did not purchase any vehicle in the 2014/15, 2015/16 financial years and since 1 April 2016. The vehicles Deputy Minister is currently using have been bought in the 2013/14 financial year.
2. The table below provides details of vehicles purchased for use by the Deputy Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development:

Question type	FINANCIAL YEARS
	2014-15	2015-16	Since 1 April 2016
a) Make	Two (2) Toyota Lexus	No vehicle purchased in the 2015-16 financial year, and since 1 April 2016 to date. The Deputy Minister is currently using the same vehicles purchased in July 2014.
2.b) Model	ES250 EX
c) Price	R438 152.00 per vehicle
d) Date purchased	July 2014

N.B: The two vehicles are split as follows: One vehicle for usage in Cape Town and surrounding areas, and the other vehicle for usage in Pretoria and surrounding areas.

Deputy Minister of Correctional Services

(a) (b) (c)(d) (i) The Deputy Minister of Correctional Services has two official vehicles. A Mercedes Benz S400 which is utilised in Pretoria and Mercedes Benz ML400 for Cape Town. The details of official vehicles for the Deputy Minister as follows:

(ii)(aa)(aaa)(bbb)(bb)	a) Make	b) Model	(c)Price	(d) date on which each vehicle was purchased	Date used by his deputies
2014-15	MERCEDES BENZ	S400	R1 198 834.19	2014/09/03	2014/2015 to date
2014-15	MERCEDES BENZ	ML400	R1 200 000.00	2014/09/03	2014/2015 to date
2015-16	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
2015-16	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
2016-17	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
2016-17	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A

Reply:

St Albans Prison comprises of the following sections mentioned on the table below:

• St Albans Maximum
• St Albans Remand Detention
• St Albans Medium B

ST ALBANS MAXIMUM
DATE/ YEAR	1(a) NUMBER OF ASSAULTS REPORTED	(b)(i)(ii) NUMBER OF CASES INVESTIGATES AND OUTCOME OF THE INVESTIGATIONS
2014	35 Cases reported	32 x cases were not opened by victims therefore they were finalised 3 x cases opened with SAPS – Finalised
2015	43 cases reported	36x cases were not opened by victims therefore they were finalised 3x cases opened with SAPS – Finalised 4 x cases opened with SAPS but offender did not want to open a case – Finalised
2016	11 cases reported	9 x cases opened with SAPS – Finalised 1 x case - offender did not want to open a case- Finalised 1 x case opened with SAPS - Pending
2017 AS OF 31 JANUARY	1 case reported	1 x case opened with SAPS in 2017 – Pending
ST ALBANS REMAND DETENTION
2014	14 cases reported	2x cases opened with SAPS – Finalised 5 x cases opened with SAPS – Pending 6 x cases reported but detainees did not open the case
2015	35 cases reported	4 x cases opened with SAPS – Finalised 1 x case opened with SAPS – Pending 30 x reported but not opened by detainees therefore finalised
2016	11 cases reported	7 x cases opened with SAPS – Finalised 3 x cases opened with SAPS - Pending 1 x case not opened by the Detainee
ST ALBANS MEDIUM B
2014	34 cases reported	8 x cases opened with SAPS – Finalised 8 x cases opened with SAPS – Pending 1 x case withdrawn by the Prosecutor – Finalised 17 x cases not opened by offenders
2015	35 cases reported	11 x cases opened with SAPS – Finalised 4 x cases opened with SAPS – Pending 20 x cases not opened by offenders therefore finalised
2016	10 cases reported	3 x cases opened with SAPS – Finalised 7 x cases not opened by offenders therefore finalised
2017	1 case reported	1 x case opened with SAPS - Pending

Reply:

1. (a) The following facilities are available for contact visits:

• St Albans Remand Detention Facility: accommodates 20 people at a time
• St Albans Medium B Correctional Centre: accommodates 40 people at a time
• St Albans Maximum Correctional Centre: accommodates 40 people at a time

(b) Correctional Services Order 3, Chapter V (3)(f)(i)(cc) stipulates that all visits are non-contact visits, but attempts should be made to allow contact visits for offenders in privilege group A. Offenders in privilege group A may however not lay claim to contact visits, as security considerations, the behaviour and adaptation of the offender remain the primary factors to be considered. The same apply to remand detainees.

 

2. (a) Each Centre has a clinic to attend to the sick inmates. There is also a 24 hour manned hospital for critically ill inmates.

(b) (i) One permanently appointed doctor.

(ii) There are thirty (30) registered nurses.

(aa) All are full–time employees

(bb) The facilities have two part–time doctors.

3. (a) Each housing unit has ablution block for inmates to shower and wash their clothes. The centres have hair clippers that are issued in each unit and

a dedicated room where inmates go and have their hair trimmed.

(b) Correctional Services Order 3, Chapter V, Sub Section (3)(f)(i)(cc) stipulates that “Head of Prisons must ensure that a qualified barber or

prisoner with appropriate experience is appointed to cut prisoners’ hair”.

Reply:

The case was argued on the 13 December 2016 and the reason for the removal of the case from the urgent court roll is that the court found that the matter was not urgent and advised that it could be placed in the ordinary motion court roll.

Reply:

(1) Yes,

(2) No; the pipeline to the livestock farming will not be closed, because it will be against the requirements of Animals Protection Act 71 of 1962, Sec (1) (c) & (e).

(2) (a) Not Applicable

(b) Not applicable

(3) (a) No, the pumping system is still new as it was installed in May 2016, at this stage the pumping system is well functioning so there is no need for repair.

(b) Yes, the Department of Public works conducted assessment on boreholes, out of seven (07), four (04) were re-drilled. The water from boreholes was tested and found to be in good condition for consumption.

(c) No, there was no existing pipeline which requires repair at this stage.

(d) No, the life span of plumbing at Barberton Farm is still in good condition.

(4) No,

(a)(b) city of Mbombela has started to dig a trench which will be connecting boreholes to the reservoir.

Reply:

1. The matter was assigned to a Senior State Advocate within the Special Commercial Crime Unit who was tasked with the review of the report.

2. (a) Yes,

  (b) The National Prosecuting Authority is currently preparing its own report based on the findings of the curator. It is this report which will indicate what the next course of action should be. It is not possible to say at this stage whether or not the matter will be referred for further investigation as that will be dependent on the recommendations to be made in the said report. The finalisation of the said report took extraordinarily long because the report of the curator is quite voluminous. However, the indications are that the report is reaching its final stages, and will be concluded within a short space of time.

Reply:

1. (a)(i) There are (3) three inmates that died of unnatural causes in the St Albans Correctional Centres in Port Elizabeth in the 2016 calendar year. All three (3) died on 26 December 2016.

(ii) The case has been reported to the SAPS with SAPS CAS number 291/12/2016. The SAPS and the Court will decide on the inquest process to follow.

(c) (i) The investigations by the South African Police Services are still in progress.

The internal DCS Investigation Report is currently under consideration of the Regional Commissioner for a decision.

(ii) & (iii) The outcome of the investigation will be communicated and implemented after the decisions are made on recommendations in consultation with the National Office. The Regional Management is currently addressing functional and administrative issues of St Albans Maximum Correctional Centre and follow-up action will be developed on finalisation of the Investigation.

2. Yes, cameras have been installed to monitor the operations in the kitchen unit at this specified Correctional Centre are operated and owned by a private company – in terms of the current nutrition contract.

Reply:

South Africa has ratified the ICESCR and in terms of section 231(4) of the Constitution is required to enact legislation to implement the International Convention on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). Chapter 2 of South Africa’s Constitution is based on the ICESCR which promotes and protects socio-economic and cultural rights. Socio-economic and cultural rights are also promoted in myriad pieces of legislation which give effect to the obligation contained in the Constitution (towards socio-economic and cultural rights). There is therefore no additional legislation required to implement the tenets of the ICESCR.

South Africa is yet to ratify the Optional Protocol to the ICESCR, so no obligation to enact legislation to domesticate the option protocol exists. Once the Optional Protocol is ratified section 231 (4) of the Constitution requires that the treaty be domesticated through the enactment of national legislation.

Reply:

1. (a) South Africa has ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political rights

(ICCPR) which required domestication through national legislation as per section 231(4) of the Constitution. There is no additional legislation required to implement the tenets of the ICCPR because South Africa has not only enshrined civil and political rights within the Bill of Rights in the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa (Act 108 of 1996), but South Africa also has existing legislative and policy frameworks in place to give effect to civil and political rights.

(b) South Africa has ratified the OP-ICCPR and is yet to domesticate same through

The enactment of national legislation. Same is receiving attention.

2. A total of nine (9) Human Rights conventions have been signed and ratified by South Africa.

Overall, South Africa is party to (has ratified) thirty-two (32) international treaties/ conventions. These relate to international human rights; humanitarian law, labour, environmental law, maritime law, labour law, trade, education, conservation and anti-corruption.

3. The decision to become party to an international instrument is taken with due regard of government’s priorities (at a given time). As these are constantly changing and being revised in light of the most pressing needs, so also does the ratification of international instruments need to change to reflect the change in societal needs and development.

4. Same is receiving attention, and is under due consideration by Government.

5. The list of all treaty obligations and reporting status is attached.

With regard to the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development’s mandate on international obligations, the following should be noted:

   (a) Each treaty has different periodic reporting requirements- some are quadrennial, while other are biennial and the Human Rights Bodies which consider the reports may request further information or may make recommendations on when the country should deposit its next report.

   (b) South Africa deposited the 1st-3rd combined periodic reports on the ICERD in 2006, and the 4th-8th combined periodic reports in 2012; the 1st ICCPR report was submitted in 2014; the 1st periodic report on the CAT was submitted in 2005 and the 2nd and 3rd reports were submitted in 2015. The 1st periodic report on the ACHPR was submitted in 1999, the 3rd-6th combined periodic reports were submitted in 2005, the 1st and 2nd UPR reports were submitted in 2008 and 2012 respectively and the 3rd UPR report is due in May 2017 and the 1st periodic report on the ICESCR is due in May 2018.

   (c) Challenges with capacity and lengthy consultative processes.

   (d) Yes, each of the reports is available.

Reply:

(1) Yes, Management is aware of the incident that took place on 01 April 2016 between inmates (perpetrator details furnished) and (victim details furnished)

(2) Yes, a departmental investigation was instituted.

(2)(a) N/A

(2)(b) The Investigation was concluded on 28 April 2016.

(2)(i) The nature of injury according to medical register G336 entry (2016/04/01) ref (50/16) inmate (victim details furnished) suffered deep laceration on his forehead to the nose.

(2)(ii) It was evident that inmate (perpetrator details furnished) has committed a disciplinary infringement as stated by Correctional Services Act, Act 111 of 1998, as amended and Section 23(1)(h) by committing an assault on a fellow inmate. The investigation recommendation was that disciplinary action be taken against the perpetrator.

(3)(a) The victim was taken to maximum correctional centre hospital for medical treatment and he was assisted to open a criminal case against the perpetrator.

(3)(b) The perpetrator is currently undergoing psychiatric sessions for unacceptable behaviour. Further interventions will follow after the recommendations by the Psychologist and the Case Officers. The search for unauthorized items has also been intensified, supervisors are promoting the maintenance of security awareness at centre level and Management functionaries must inculcate security awareness in all officials by means of a scheduled programme (daily/weekly/monthly) in order to ensure that every official realizes the importance of his/her role in ensuring the safe custody of prisoners. Lastly, identified tendencies/frequencies must be approached in a spirit of participative management.

(3)(c) The Case Management Committee degraded the privileges of the perpetrator from B category to C category with applicable restrictions of amenities.

Reply:

There has over the years been a significant reduction in the number of remand detainees.

Periods	Average number of RDs
Average March 2012	47191
Average Sept 2012	45138
Average March 2013	46852
Average Sept 2013	43360
Average March 2014	43973
Average Sept 2014	40146
Average March 2015	42901
Average Sept 2015	40675
Average March 2016	44026
Average Sept 2016	41486
Reduction in numbers	5705
Reduction in %	12.09%

The table above reflecting the trends from March 2012 to September 2016 revealed that the population of RDs reduced by 12.09% over a period of five years. This reduction should be equated to the team effort of various role players who contribute in the implementation of the strategies. These results could be much better if the factors that play a role in delaying cases could be effectively managed. A further study is required with focus on the remand detainees with co-accused whose cases take longer than three years. Another area that requires attention is the front end of the Criminal Justice System with focus on the RDs that spend up to three months in detention.

Children Remand Detainees:

With the introduction of the Child Justice Act (Act 75 of 2008), the number of RD children reduced from 504 in March 2010 to an annual average of 99 in 2015/16. The lowest average number of children was recorded in August 2016 (72). The overall reduction of children RDs from 2010 to August 2016 was 85.7%.

It is crucial to understand that the key drivers of the population of the remand detainees are beyond the control of the detention institutions. These drivers, according to international literature, are the use of pre-trial detention and the increasing trend in serious crimes. The increase in serious crimes is closely related to an increase in the use of pre-trial detention by courts without the option of bail.

The number of admissions and the length of stay are regarded as other drivers which are beyond the control of institutions responsible for the detention of RDs. Factors found to be linked to the increase in the length of stay of remand detainees are as follows,

• The presence of multiple co-accused in one case or accused linked to other crimes that are under investigation;
• Withdrawal, rehiring of legal representatives and changing of legal representatives by the accused;
• Failure of the co-accused and or their legal representative to appear in court on set dates thus leading to remanding of the cases for several times;
• Request for the separation of trials by the accused in the middle of the cases;
• Brings of bail applications by the accused in the middle of the trail through the bail application was attended to at the beginning of the case;
• Delays in securing a date at the high court for the cases that are escalated by lower courts to high courts;
• Loss of court records;
• Failure of witnesses to appear in court;
• Presence of multiple witnesses in some cases;
• Requests for remand either by defence, lawyers of the accused and/or the state;
• Failure of the co-accused to appear in court especially those that are under non-custodial system;

In addition to the previously mentioned key drivers, there are other factors that are thought to play a role in the failure to reduce the number of RD’s. These factors include failure to pay bail by the remand detainees who have been given bail by courts. The percentage of such RD’s ranges between 15 and 19%.

Despite all the challenges mentioned above there are several strategies implemented to deal with overcrowding at the cluster level and the departmental level.

Additional interventions which specifically focus on the down management of remand detainees by the DCS are:

1. The implementation of bail protocol (Section 63A of Criminal Procedure Act, Act 51 of 1977). The protocol makes provision for the Head of a Correctional Centre to approach the relevant court to release an accused on warning in lieu of bail or to amend the bail conditions imposed by that court when the offender population of a particular correctional centre is reaching such proportions that it constitutes a material and imminent threat to human dignity, physical health or safety of the accused. It is worth mentioning that this section is only applicable to those accused with bail who have been charged with Schedule 7 crimes.

1. The Marketing of section 63(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act (Act 51 of 1977). Section 63(1) makes provision for the accused or prosecutor to make an application to the court to reduce the amount of bail that was set by the relevant court.

1. Referral of RDs to court for consideration of their length of detention. The Correctional Service Act (section 49G) makes provision for the Head of the Centre to submit an application to court for the consideration of the length of detention of the RDs before they complete two years in detention initially (application submitted at 21 months) and annually with regard to subsequent applications. The provision does not suggest that there is custody limit in terms of period of detention in South Africa for RDs. The courts responds by utilizing the provisions applicable to section 63A applications as there is no parallel provision in the Criminal Procedure Act.

The cluster approach in the reduction management of remand detainees appears to be effective. The DCS alone could not be successful in reducing the population of the RDs. The Executive Head of the Department of Justice and Correctional Services in consultation with Director of NPA and the National Commissioner of Correctional Services has appointed a bail task team which has been assigned to determine factors that contribute to the RDs staying in detention while they have an option of paying bail. The task team falling under the Criminal Justice System Reform is finalizing the report on audit conducted in Pollsmoor and the Mthatha centres remand detention facilities. It is hoped that the report will assist in providing guidance on coming up with alternative approaches for managing RDs with bail.

Reply:

1. (a)(i) and (b) In respect of civil matters and internal disciplinary proceedings pertaining to Mr Anwa Dramat, Mr Shadrack Sibiya, Mr Robert McBride, the Office of the State Attorney was not involved in these matters, excluding for the matter of Mr Johan Booysen. The details are explained below:

Johan Wessels Booysen / NDPP and Others: Case No. 8247/2015 – Durban High Court. In this matter an amount of R9 623.94 was expended on counsel and correspondent attorney fees.

(ii) All the criminal cases mentioned above were handled by the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) prosecutors, and there were no specific costs related to criminal litigation in all these cases

2. (a)(i)(ii) and (b) According to the records at the State Attorney, there are no matters specifying that the State Attorney was an attorney of record, with a cost order being granted in these matters.

Reply:

No, the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development has not been informed of instances where cases before children’s courts could not proceed due to the social worker’s failure to comply with Regulation 56 of Regulation R261 of 1 April 2010 of the Children’s Act, Act 38 of 2005, as amended. It will therefore be appreciated if the details of these cases could be released to the Department to investigate this matter within the parameters of the Department’s mandate.

The Department further notes that Department of Social Development might be in a better position to respond to this matter since the responsibility to place advertisements in a local newspaper circulating in the area where the abandoned and/or orphaned child was found resides with them.

Reply:

The appeal is set down to be heard on 14 February 2017 at the North Gauteng High Court.

Reply:

It must be noted that the accused application for a discharge in terms of section 174 of the Criminal Procedure Act was refused. In other words the court found that the state had published a case that the accused had to answer. The National Director of Public Prosecutors (NDPP) convened a meeting where the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) South Gauteng, Advocate Andrew Chauke was requested to submit a report on various allegations relating to the prosecution of the case. At the conclusion of that meeting, it was decided that the DPP would obtain the transcript of the court proceedings for him to further address the matter with the prosecutor and his supervisor.

The DPP further reported to the NDPP that he perused the transcript of the proceedings and subsequently addressed the shortcomings of the prosecutor and pointed out to him the resultant adverse effects on the case due to him not communicating the developments in court to his supervisor.

Reply:

(1) (a)(b)(i) No contracts and/or agreements were signed between the Department of Correctional Services and Khulisa Social Solutions at National level since the approval of the Quality Assurance Manual in 2005. Prior to the establishment of the Quality Assurance Committees as per Quality Assurance Manual, there were no formal or prescribed and or standardized methods of quality assuring service providers.

(ii) Khulisa Social Solutions has agreements with Gauteng and Western Cape regions from 2005, and they operate without an agreement at Kwazulu Natal region. The service provider has submitted applications to be quality assured at national level on the 10th of October 2016 in order to confirm if operational agreements were signed with specific management areas. The application will only be processed and considered on the 1st of December 2016 when the committee meets, as it meets quarterly.

(aa)(bb)(cc)(dd) The following table addresses questions asked:

(aa) on what date was each contract and/or agreement signed	(bb) what are the full details of the specified services that the specified organisation was expected to render in each case	(cc) where did the organisation render the services in each case	(dd) what is the total cost of each of the specified contracts and/or agreements
Gauteng Region
May - July 2005	HIV AIDS Peer Educators Training (74 offenders)	Leeuwkop Management Area	Nil
July-December 2005	Substance Abuse	Leeuwkop Management Area	Nil
September 2008	Silence the Violence Programme, HIV AIDS & Substance Abuse	Krugersdorp, Leeuwkop and Zonderwater Management Area	Nil
June-September 2014	Restorative Justice Processes Training to Psychologists, Social Workers and Spiritual Care Personnel	Boksburg M/Area	Nil
Western Cape Region
April 2009 – December 2009	Roll-out of Peer Education Support Groups, Monthly Monitoring of Peer Education Support Group, Staff training and orientation (administrative side)	Worcester Male Centre Worcester Female Centre Robertson Correctional Centre Dwarsriver Correctional Centre	Nil
Kwazulu Natal Region
No contract or agreement was signed with Khulisa. However the organization rendered programmes from 2008 to 2009	Peer education programme: My path personal development programme Drug smart peer education programme HIV/AIDS peer education programme	Durban Female Centre	Nil
No contract or agreement signed. However the organisation rendered programmes in 2009	Organization rendered programmes to Parolees and offenders which were: Sexual Offenders Programmes Problem- Solving problem Finding the employment programme	Empangeni Community Corrections Qalakabusha Correctional Centre	Nil
No contract or Agreement signed. However the organisation rendered programmes in 2008	Programmes rendered to offenders and Remand Detainees: Making Amend-Restorative Justice Programme Cycle of Crime Cross Roads	Ladysmith Correctional Centre (offenders) Bergville Correctional Centre (offenders) Dundee Correctional Centre (Remand Detainees)	Nil
No contract or Agreement signed. However the organisation rendered programmes from 2005 to 2007 The Waterval Management Area has recently entered into an agreement with Khulisa from September 2016 to September 2017	Peer education programme: My path personal development programme Drug smart peer education programme HIV/AIDS Peer education programme	Waterval Medium A Newcastle Community Corrections	Nil

Reply:

In response to the question posed by the Honourable Member, the Special Investigating Unit (SIU) has informed me that:

1. The investigation on Proclamation R21 of 14 May 2010 is finalised. A final report to the President is being prepared and is anticipated to be submitted to Presidency by March 2017.

           The SIU have been working with the Asset Forfeiture Unit in attending to three (3) matters.

       2. The SIU referred evidence or alleged corruption, fraud and theft to the relevant Prosecuting Authority during 2011 and 2013 respectively in relation to the following:

        (i) The appointment of 3P Consulting (PTY) Ltd vide Johannesburg, CAS 755/09/2011; and

        (ii) The appointment of the Baoki Consortium. The matter is under investigation by the Anti-Corruption Task Team (ACTT) vide, ref 40/2013.

Further relevant details of the matters under investigation obtained from the National Prosecuting Authority are as follows:

 (a) 3P Consulting (PTY) Ltd

1. The matter is still under investigation.
2. The Forensic audit report from Gobodo is not finalised yet.
3. No person has been charged with any offence.
4. Following the completion of the investigation and the finalisation of the forensic audit report, a decision will be made regarding paragraph (iii) above.

 (b) Baoki Consortium

1. The matter is under investigation by the ACTT.
2. The Investigating Officer is tracing outstanding documentation.
3. No person has been charged with any offence.
4. Following the completion of the investigation a decision will be made regarding paragraph (iii) above.

Any other details relating to these matters may be obtained from the South African Police Service (SAPS).

Reply:

Notwithstanding the fact that there is no provision in the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) Act for the Minister of Justice and Correctional Services to take any action against prosecutors for exercising prosecutorial functions according to the Prosecution Directives and Guidelines, the following outline serves as background for the Minister in relation to this matter.

As such, there was no reason for any action to be taken against the prosecutors in the normal course of exercising their duties. Section 42 of the NPA Act further excludes liability where the prosecutorial decision was taken in good faith.

Reply:

The National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) has informed me that the NPA does not collate specific statistics on offence. However, the table below highlights cases that are extracted from the case administration system developed by SCCU Regional Heads.

Particulars of the Matter	Quantum/Amount Involved
1. The State v Legodi Boshielo & 2 others – Project Mobile Classrooms - Department of Education - Limpopo	R70 million
2. The State v Mogotlane and Nemavhola- Project Mankele Bridge - Department of Roads and Transport - Limpopo	R79,5 million
3. The State v Mweli and Others- Project Department of Education - North West	R16 million
4. The State v Sbu Ndebele and Others - Project Tasima - Department of Transport - Pretoria	R42.5 million
5. The State v Savoy and Others- Project Intaka- Department of Health - KZN	R70 million
6. The State v .Energy Utility Services (Pty) Lt and Others – Project Eskom – Western Cape	R65 million
7. The State v Steven Jonkers and Another- Project Bus Contractor - Department of Transport - Northern Cape	R14,5 million
8. The State v Scholtz and Others - Project Trifecta - Department of Social Development - Northern Cape	R200 million

Reply:

(a) Finalization rates’ relate to criminal investigations, which are not conducted by the AFU but by the DPCI (ACTT) and SAPS.

(b) I have been informed by the National Prosecuting Authority, that during the period under review, the Assets Forfeiture Unit (AFU) had undertaken to prioritize the finalization of a large number of freezing orders in terms of Chapter 5 of the Prevention of Organized Crime Act (POCA). The said cases were to be obtained from several complex high value cases that were being investigated by the Anti-Corruption Task Team (ACTT). As a result of the delays in the finalization of the several investigations at the ACTT, no freezing orders could be secured in respect of those specific cases, hence the decline in the freezing orders for the period.

I have further been informed that due to severe investigative capacity constraints, several freezing orders which were prioritized in terms of Chapter 6 of POCA, could not be finalized.

Reply:

Regarding the Organised crime

The organised crime statistics reflected relate to those cases within the ambit of the Organised Crime component. The NPA does not intend to measure the crime but rather the effectiveness and performance of the components dealing with the more serious and complicated cases of organised crime. The focus of this component includes:

• Bank robberies, cash-in-transit heists, car and truck hijacking; business robberies, syndicate house robberies and ATM attacks;
• Trafficking in Precious Metals, and Diamonds;
• Non- Ferrous metals; (SEC 3 OF ACT 18 OF 2015 - Offence relating to essential infrastructure)
• Endangered species;
• Drug trafficking;
• Human Trafficking;
• Gang related matters under POCA;
• Racketeering and money laundering offences;
• Any other investigations referred to OCIU by SAPS management

Regarding the House Robberies

Investigations on house robberies, similar to most other serious crimes, take some time to finalise and then also take quite a substantial time to be finalised once the trial has started. On average, these cases last between 12 to 24 months to be finalised. If there is an increase of these cases during the 2016/17 financial year, this will only reflect from the following year in the court performance data. NPA performance on house robberies finalised during 2015/16 was in line with the trend by the SAPS as reflected during their 2014/15 financial year, which has in fact shown a decline for the previous three successive years. The following is an extract from the SAPS Annual Report information for 2014/15:

											15	Comparison 2013-2014 with 2014-2015
	Province	April 2005 to March 2006	April 2006 to March 2007	April 2007 to March 2008	April 2008 to March 2009	April 2009 to March 2010	April 2010 to March 2011	April 2011 to March 2012	April 2012 to March 2013	April 2013 to March 2014	April 2014 to March 2015	Case Diff	% Change	% Contribution
1	Gauteng	74990	67643	63559	68961	74429	70447	64475	68296	67988	66172	-1816	-2,7%	26,1%
2	Western Cape	40837	43011	42239	42792	43171	43685	44494	49509	50503	47783	-2720	-5,4%	18,8%
3	KwaZulu-Natal	40631	39486	36898	37515	40231	39439	41010	45404	43969	43274	-695	-1,6%	17,1%
4	Eastern Cape	32978	31421	29346	28380	28233	27086	26825	25782	24643	24329	-314	-1,3%	9,6%
5	Mpumalanga	20305	19444	18785	19766	19206	18026	18117	18777	18489	18183	-306	-1,7%	7,2%
6	Limpopo	12768	12346	11790	12332	13936	13376	15225	14851	16477	16466	-11	-0,1%	6,5%
7	North West	15463	13684	13576	14277	14859	14740	14569	15705	15388	15687	299	1,9%	6,2%
8	Free State	17353	15939	15545	16040	15682	14828	15101	17284	16314	15618	-696	-4,3%	6,2%
9	Northern Cape	6078	5488	4900	5402	5531	4985	4851	5711	6013	6204	191	3,2%	2,4%
	South Africa	261402	248462	236638	245465	255278	246612	244667	261319	259784	253716	-6068	-2,3%

Reply:

(a) Yes. The purpose of the meeting was to reflect on a rapidly unfolding degenerating situation at institutions of higher learning as a direct result of the violence that had erupted during the protestation against the high cost of accessing higher education and the call for free education under the umbrella of the “Fees must fall” campaign. It was deemed prudent to return the appropriate State intervention to stabilise the situation as busses were burning, shops were being looted, streets were barricaded, buildings and vehicles were being vandalised and harm was inflicted on persons.

(b) No. The President had been apprised of the impending prosecution days before this meeting. It was hence not necessary to discuss the matter. The matter nevertheless had no bearing on the agenda of the meeting and was never raised nor discussed at all.

(c) It was an emergency meeting called by His Excellency, the Honourable President, who invited Ministers of the Justice, Crime, Prevention & Security Cluster. The President was leaving the country later that day. The location was most convenient, as most of the members of the executive who attended the meeting were already at the venue for other commitments. Due to the urgency of the situation the meeting thus took place at this venue.

Reply:

1. The escapee has not yet been rearrested.

(1)(a)(b) The Department of Correctional Services in conjunction with the SAPS are currently following up on all possible leads to affect the re-arrest of the escapee and will do everything possible to ensure his re-arrest as soon as possible.

2. Yes. The two (2) officials who were on guard, are currently on suspension pending the finalization of the investigation.

3. (a) (i) The following inmates attempted to escape from medical facilities outside of their detention facilities over the past 5 years:

Year	Name of medical facility	Date of attempted escape	Number of attempted escapees
2012/2013	Nil
2013/2014	Nil
2014/2015	Katleho Hospital	18/01/2015	1
2015/2016	Tambo Memorial Hospital	01/08/2015	1
	Mohau Hospital	05/11/2015	1
2016/2017	Nil

(3)(a)(ii)&(b)(c) The following inmates succeeded to escape from medical facilities outside of their detention facilities over the past 5 years:

Year	Name of medical facility	Date of escape	Number of escapees	Date rearrested	Disciplinary action against officials
2012/2013	Tambo Memorial Hospital	17/12/2013	1	24/12/2013	A sanction of two (2) month salary suspension was implemented against 2 officials.
2013/2014	Victoria Public Hospital	03/03/2014	1	03/03/2014	One official received a final written warning.
2014/2015	Barberton General Hospital	01/05/2014	1	01/05/2014	Sanction of Final Written Warning against 2 officials.
	Baragwanath Hospital	27/08/2014	1	13/06/2015	One (1) official was dismissed.
	Kimberley hospital	02/11/2014	1	Still at large	One (1) official was suspended for 3 months without salary.
2015/2016	Worcester hospital	02/06/2015	1	06/06/2015	Two (2) officials were charged. Each received a final written warning.
	King Edward hospital	17/07/2015	1	Still at large	Sanctions instituted against one (1) official (1 month suspension with no salary).
2016/2017	George Mukhari hospital	01/05/2016	1	08/05/2016	The official was criminally charged for aiding an escape.
	Tshepong hospital	13/06/2016	1	Still at large	Disciplinary actions are instituted against correctional officials who were on guard but not finalised.
	Nelson Mandela Academic hospital	13/09/2016	1	Still at large	Investigation not finalised.
	SANTA hospital	19/10/2016	1	Still at large	Investigation still in process.
	Victoria Public hospital	31/10-2016	1	Still at large	Investigation still in process.

Reply:

I wish to inform the Honourable Member that I have received the following information from the National Prosecuting Authority:

VACANCY RATES as on 30 September 2016

Overall vacancy per business unit:

COMPONENT NAME	TOTAL	FILLED	VACANT	VACANCY RATE
Assets Forfeiture Unit (AFU)	165	131	34	20.7
Sexual Offences and Community Affairs (SOCA)	220	155	65	29.5
Specialised Commercial Crimes Unit (SCCU)	190	165	25	13.2
Office of Witness Protection (OWP)	164	153	11	6.8
Priority Crimes Litigation Unit (PCLU)	7	4	3	42.9
Corporate Services	501	385	116	23.2
TOTAL	1247	993	254	20.4

Vacancy Rate per Division – Prosecutions

TOTAL NO OF FILLED, VACANT AND VACANCY RATE National Prosecution Service (NPS)
REGION	TOTAL	FILLED	VACANT	VACANCY RATE
NORTH GAUTENG	512	428	84	16.4
SOUTH GAUTENG	545	480	65	12
NORTH WEST	201	189	12	6
LIMPOPO	305	253	52	17
MPUMALANGA	243	191	52	21.4
EASTERN CAPE	416	366	50	12
MTHATHA	203	168	35	17.2
WESTERN CAPE	633	575	58	9.2
NORTHERN CAPE	176	148	28	16
FREE STATE	290	255	35	12
KwaZulu-Natal	722	621	101	14
NPS (Head Office)	52	50	2	3.8
TOTAL	4298	3724	574	13.4

Reply:

Number of case backlogs

The target on the number of backlog cases in the Lower courts falls within the ambit of DOJ&CD annual plan whilst the target on the backlog cases of the high courts were assigned to the OCJ. Since prosecutors have an important role to play in the speedy finalisation of cases, the number of backlog cases is still monitored and measured within the lower level annual plans.

The high courts managed a reduction of 12% but an increase is noted in both lower court forums.

The overall progress is indicated below:

Table21: Progress on case backlogs

FORUM	2014/15	% of National	2015/16	% of National	Progress
HIGH COURT	216	0,8%	190	0,7%	-12,0%
REGIONAL COURT	14 106	52,5%	14 485	48,9%	2,7%
DISTRICT COURT	12 572	46,7%	14 924	50,4%	18,7%
ALL	26 894	100,0%	29 599	100,0%	10,1%

A corresponding increase of 7.9% is noted in the number of outstanding cases carried forward to the next financial year. However, notwithstanding the reduction in backlog cases the number of outstanding cases increased in the high courts. An increase of 11.6% is also noted in the district courts. The regional courts indicated a reduction in outstanding roll.

Table 19: Progress on outstanding cases

FORUM	2014/15	% of National	2015/16	% of National	Progress
HIGH COURT	817	0,5%	892	0,5%	9,2%
REGIONAL COURT	41 895	24,4%	40 291	21,8%	-3,8%
DISTRICT COURT	128 996	75,1%	144 019	77,8%	11,6%
ALL	171 708	100,0%	185 202	100,0%	7,9%

Case backlogs and backlog project

The Justice, Crime Prevention and Security Cluster (JCPS) departments have introduced various interventions to deal with the case backlogs. In this regard a specific Case Backlog Reduction Project was implemented in November 2006 with the regional courts as the main focus area. Backlog cases are viewed as all those cases longer than 6 months on the district court roll, 9 months on the regional court roll and 12 months on the High Court roll. The Case Backlog Reduction Project assists regional and district court centres in identified priority areas country-wide that require focused attention. The project’s aim is to ensure that the inflow of new cases is balanced by the number of matters concluded and that matters are finalised more speedily.

This intervention led to the establishment of more than 50 additional regional backlog courts, through the appointment of additional regional court magistrates, clerks, prosecutors, interpreters and legal aid lawyers on contract. The number has fluctuated since then as courts were closed or shifted to other areas once the backlog was dealt with. After an investigation into the performance of the district courts, several high priority district backlog courts were also established since April 2010 and these courts have made a tremendous contribution to the overall success of the project.

The Department of Justice and Constitutional Development has consequently converted some backlog courts to permanent courts. The remaining courts will continue until they are converted, closed or shifted to another area.

During 2015/16, there were 27 approved regional and 25 district backlog courts. The district backlog courts excelled during 2015/16 by finalising a total of 14 711 cases comprising 10 525 verdict cases with a conviction rate of 95.3% and 4 186 ADRM cases. This represents a finalisation rate of 3.8 cases per court, per day. The regional backlog courts finalised a total of 2 421 cases comprising 2 363 verdict cases with a conviction rate of 75.2% and 58 ADRM cases. This represents a finalisation rate of 0.6 cases per court, per day.

The increase number of trials finalised in the high court had a positive impact on the reduction of percentage backlog cases, from 26.4% during 2014/15 to 21.3% in 2015/16.

Reply:

1. During the 2015/16 financial year, 2 369 persons who were charged with a variety of criminal offences, were referred for psychiatric evaluation by the courts, according to the records held at the Department of Health in this regard.

2. Yes. There appears to be a very small increase in the number of persons (namely 4 more persons) that were charged and referred for psychiatric evaluation in the 2015/16 financial year compared to the previous 2014/15 financial year, where 2 365 persons were referred for psychiatric evaluation, according to the records held at the Department of Health in this regard. The number of persons that are charged and referred for psychiatric evaluation by the courts may differ from year to year as it is dependent on the assessments made by the courts as to whether there is a need for such referral for psychiatric evaluation.