Questions and Replies

Reply:

(1)(a) The National Prosecuting Authority calculates its general conviction rates and crime specific conviction rates on the basis of verdict cases. (b) It is calculated in terms of the percentage of cases finalised with a verdict in which a guilty verdict was obtained.

The percentage is determined by taking the cases finalised with a guilty verdict (including Section 57A of the Criminal Procedure Act, 1977) divided by the total number of cases finalised with a verdict. In the case of convictions these are only measured at the date of sentencing, while in the case of not-guilty verdicts these cases will be counted on the date of such verdict (i.e. only finalised cases are measured).

The reply to question 2 (a) on the total number of cases that (i) were withdrawn in each region in the specified financial year and (ii) were re-enrolled in the 2016/17 financial year and (b) what are the relevant details in each case, are explained below.

The table below sets out the number of cases withdrawn per region, per forum. The figures show the Serious Commercial Crimes Unit (SCCU) cases separately from the other regional courts. I am further informed that the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) does not keep details of re-enrolments (these are new court cases) and is unable to supply the details of each case.

FINANCIAL YEAR	DIVISION	District Courts	Regional Courts	SCCU	High Courts	TOTAL
2015/2016	ECD	10877	1094	4	5	11980
2015/2016	ECD Mthatha	1386	279	0	6	1671
2015/2016	FSD	5053	931	20	9	6013
2015/2016	KZND	20641	2160	55	11	22867
2015/2016	NCD	2809	281	0	3	3093
2015/2016	NGD	17621	2719	63	6	20409
2015/2016	NWD	2702	711	0	0	3413
2015/2016	SGD	6096	1807	80	9	7992
2015/2016	WCD	27934	2000	24	5	29963
2015/2016 Total		95119	11982	246	54	107401

Reply:

1. The National Prosecuting Authority has informed me that the detailed reasons for court hours declining by 7%, are as follows: The NPA had indicated in the Annual Report that an analysis of the court time spent on criminal matters in court, was conducted. More court days are being utilised as shown by the increase of 3.5%. However, the efficient use of those increased days is not reflected in the actual court hours used for criminal cases, which impedes all attempts to ensure speedy justice. The average court hours fell by 7.0% from an average of 3h31 maintained during 2014/15 to 3h16 during 2015/16. A total of 32 863:49 hours were lost compared to the previous reporting period.

Table 4: Progress on criminal court hours

FORUM	AVE HOURS 2014/15	Total Court Hours	AVE HOURS 2015/16	Total Court Hours	Progress
HIGH COURT	03:04	25798:15	02:48	26976:20	-8,7%
REGIONAL COURT	03:38	260785:48	03:26	254333:54	-5,2%
DISTRICT COURT	03:29	590284:31	03:13	562694:30	-7,7%
ALL	03:31	876868:34	03:16	844 004:44	-7.0%

Unfortunately, the NPA does not record the reasons for loss of court hours and it does not reflect all court hours as only criminal court hours are recorded. The judiciary are keeping record of the hours as well as the reasons for loss of hours and these are discussed at case flow management meetings where problems in this regard are being addressed.

2) In the Annual Report, the NPA indicated that the effective performance of the NPA is directly linked to the effective performance of the other role players within the criminal justice system. Ensuring that cases proceed when they are set down for trial remains a primary challenge that the system has not adequately addressed. The implementation of pre-trial hearings identified by the NPA, Legal Aid South Africa and the Office of the Chief Justice as one of the solutions to prevent remands of trial ready cases has been slow in gaining traction, particularly in the lower courts. This has been compounded by the placing of too few trial cases on the court rolls, resulting in wasted court hours. The norms and standards issued by the Chief Justice have not yet led to increased court hours. Inadequacies of role-players in the system remain a concern as they impact on the finalisation of case. However, these are monitored and reported at the Provincial Efficiency Enhancement Committee (PEEC) meetings, which are chaired by the Judges President of every province.

3) This is partly answered by the paragraphs under answer (2) above, particularly with regard to the need for pre-trial hearings and the placing of sufficient trial cases on the court rolls.

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.

Reply:

I have been informed that in the NPA’s annual report, the year-on-year decline in the achievements of this indicator, was indicated. A comparative analysis with the achievements during previous years indicates a gradual decline of 11.4% from 2009/10 in the number of cases finalised with a verdict. The decline may be correlated with a similar decline of 17.2% in the influx of new cases and a 12.8% reduction in court hours.

The courts finalised 310 850 verdict cases with a conviction rate of 93% (289 245 convictions). Compared to the previous year, 8 299 (2.6%) fewer cases were finalised with a verdict. The high conviction rate illustrates the focus on high quality prosecutions, notwithstanding the reduction in cases finalised. The progress per forum during 2015/16 is indicated in the table below:

Table 6: Progress on cases finalised with a verdict

FORUM	2014/15	% of National	2015/16	% of National	Progress
HIGH COURT	978	0,3%	1012	0,3%	3,5%
REGIONAL COURT	33 430	10,5%	31 832	10,2%	-4,8%
DISTRICT COURT	284 741	89,2%	278 006	89,4%	-2,4%
ALL	319 149	100,0%	310 850	100,0%	-2,6%

A decline in performance is noted in both lower court forums compared to the previous year. The regional courts finalised 1 598 (4.8%) fewer cases and the district courts 6 735 (2.4%). The high courts managed to finalise 34 more cases during this period, which represents an improvement of 3.5% compared to the corresponding period during the previous year.

The NPA furthermore indicated that in order to save valuable court time and speed up the finalisation of cases without impeding on the quality of prosecutions, a total of 1 901 plea and sentence agreements were successfully concluded, comprising of 7 066 counts (see Appendix 1 at the end of the annual report for a full list). This represents an increase of 8.2% compared to 1 757 agreements concluded last year. Even though the number of agreements concluded does not appear to be significant if compared to the total number of finalised cases, the counts involved in these matters would have taken up valuable court time had trials been conducted. In 15 of the cases, the counts involved more than 100 counts per case.

Enhanced screening processes may impact on the number of new cases as prosecutors ensure, as far as possible, to enrol only trial ready matters. In order to curb the notion that prosecutors are selective with cases dealt with, the number of withdrawals is also measured to ensure quality prosecutions and a just outcome in all cases. The comparison indicates a positive reduction of 17.7% in the number of cases withdrawn in all courts.

The NPA has informed me that the effective performance of the NPA is directly linked to the effective performance of the other role players within the criminal justice system. Ensuring that cases proceed when they are set down for trial remains a primary challenge that the system has not adequately addressed. The implementation of pre-trial hearings identified by the NPA, Legal Aid South Africa and the Office of the Chief Justice as one of the solutions to prevent remands of trial ready cases has been slow in gaining traction, particularly in the lower courts. This has been compounded by the placing of too few trial cases on the court rolls, resulting in wasted court hours.

The norms and standards issued by the Chief Justice have not yet led to increased court hours. Inadequacies of role-players in the system remain a concern as they impact on the finalization of cases. However, these are monitored and reported at the Provincial Efficiency Enhancement Committee (PEEC) meetings, chaired by the Judges President in each province.

Reply:

1 (a) Prosecutors receive training on legal topics which include the following:

1. Admissibility of evidence statements: the purpose of the programme is to ensure that prosecutors know the difference between a confession, an admission and a pointing out and when these statements are admissible and when they are not.

2. Advanced environmental crimes programme with emphasis on “brown” environmental issues: the purpose of the programme is to ensure that prosecutors have an overall knowledge of what environmental crimes entail.

3. Advanced trial advocacy: the purpose of the programme is to ensure that prosecutors understand how our adversarial system is used to uncover facts and to acknowledge the role of the prosecutor within the system.

4. Child pornography and related offences: the purpose of the programme is to ensure that prosecutors have an understanding of offences relating to child pornography.

5. Civil applications training: the purpose of this training is to ensure that prosecutors know how to deal with motion applications

6. Counter terrorism and international crimes: the purpose of this programme is to equip prosecutors on how to manage investigations and prosecute crimes which impact on State security, both nationally and internationally.

7. Corruption and fraud: the purpose of the programme is to ensure that prosecutors know and are able to prove the elements of crimes applicable to corruption and fraud.

8. Cyber-crimes: the purpose of the programme is to ensure that prosecutors have an understanding of cyber-crimes and applicable legislation.

9. Evidence involving the use of communication technology: the purpose of the programme is to ensure that prosecutors have a basic overview of the new offences in the Cyber-crimes and Related Matters Bill and the Cyber-crimes and Cybersecurity Bill, 2015.

10. Forensic experts programme: the purpose of the programme is to ensure that prosecutors have an understanding of forensic evidence presented in court and how to deal with it when presented.

11. High court bridging programme: the purpose of the programme is to ensure that prosecutors are prepared and groomed to prosecute in the high court.

12. Immigration and related offences programme: the purpose of the programme is to ensure that prosecutors have an understanding of immigration and related offences including offences under the Immigration Act, 2002 (Act No 13 of 2002).

13. Law of evidence: basic principles programme: the purpose of the programme is to ensure that prosecutors know and apply the basic principles of the law of evidence.

14. Legal writing, indictments; charge sheets and related topics: the purpose of this training is to ensure that prosecutors are able to draw up charge sheets; indictments and heads of arguments in line with the prescripts of the law.

15. Mediation and alternative dispute resolution mechanisms programme: the purpose of the programme is to ensure that prosecutors have an understanding of mediation and alternative dispute resolution mechanisms.

16. Organised crime: advanced programme: the purpose of the programme is to ensure that prosecutors have an understanding of the provisions of the Prevention of Organised Crime Act, 1998 (Act No 121 of 1998).

17. Psychiatry / psychology and the law programme: the purpose of the programme is to ensure that prosecutors have an understanding of psychology and psychiatry in general which include amongst others topics such as: personality disorders, psychometric personality tests; mental retardation / psychometric intellectual functioning tests and non-pathological criminal incapacity.

18. Trial Advocacy training: The purpose of the programme is to ensure that prosecutors understand how our adversarial system is used to uncover facts and to acknowledge the role of the prosecutor within the system. This includes analysing skills in the screening of cases ready for institution of prosecution; identification of the offence and evaluation of the evidence.

19. Stock theft and related offences programme: the purpose of the programme is to ensure that prosecutors know and apply the applicable legislation relating to stock theft (Stock Theft Act, 1959 (Act No 57 of 1959)).

20. “Trio” and other serious violent crimes programme: the purpose of the programme is to ensure that prosecutors know and are able to prove the elements of crimes and be aware of the relevant competent verdicts and minimum sentences.

Over and above legal issues, prosecutors are trained by Justice College on Management Programmes aimed at equipping them with the necessary knowledge to be effective managers within the NPA.

(b) Training programmes are offered at basic; intermediary and advanced level, depending on the level of the skills of learners identified to attend the programme.

(c) All training programmes above are conducted by Justice College with the assistance of experienced prosecutors within the NPA.

Further to this the Sexual Offences and Community Affairs Unit (SOCA) offers training to prosecutors on the following:

• Sexual Offences;
• Maintenance;
• Child Justice;
• Domestic Violence and
• Trafficking in Persons

2 (a) Regarding the question relating to what are the relevant details of the ongoing mentoring offered to the prosecutors of the NPA to address declining levels of skills, (b) at what level is the specified mentoring being offered, (c) by whom and (d) what form does the mentoring take, I have been informed as follows:

(a) The NPA is at this stage offering mentoring as part of on-going on the job training. This is done through the pairing of less experienced prosecutors with those more experienced in particular fields of criminal law / prosecution.

(b), (c) and (d): This training strategy is applied from entry level into prosecution, where aspirants are placed under the mentorship of both a tutor and a senior prosecutor. For more senior level prosecutors, allocation of cases under supervision also serves as part of the mentoring programme that is in place, as well as rotation of prosecutors to give exposure to different kinds of prosecutions / cases.

Reply:

I will introduce the relevant legislation in the event of Cabinet agreeing to move the Matatiele Local Municipality back to Kwazulu –Natal.

Reply:

1.Department of Justice and Constitutional Development:

The Department of Justice and Constitutional Development does not have data of the forensic audit cases for the past four (4) financial years. However, the attached spreadsheet, attached as Annexure A, provides details of the forensic audit cases registered in the 2013/14, 2014/15, 2015/16 and 2015/16 financial years.

2. Entities:

2.1 National Prosecuting Authority (NPA):

The NPA has informed that there are no forensic reports pertaining to the NPA in the period from 1 January 2009 up to date.

2.2 Special Investigating Unit (SIU):

The SIU is not aware of any internal or external forensic reports pertaining to its affairs for the period specified.

​2.3 Legal Aid South Africa:

      (a) The Legal Aid SA‘s internal forensic reports completed from 1 January 2009 to September 2016 are tabulated below:

aa) Name	bb)Subject matter	cc) Date of conclusion
(A) 2010/11 financial year
1. Allegation on performing private work and utilising Legal Aid South Africa’s assets and stationery	Allegations against a Justice Centre Executive for performing private work. It was alleged the Executive used Legal Aid SA’s stationery, printers and personnel to run his private business.	4 October 2010
2. The alleged use of Ms. Martha Mbhele’s 3G by someone else	Alleged use of a 3G card allocated to Legal Aid SA employee by someone else.	27 September 2010
3. Half day leave review at Bloemfontein Justice Centre	Review of half days leave taken at justice centre	11 July 2011
4. Complaint by Ms Ntombikhona Emmaculate Dlamini	An investigation of circumstances relating to the legal services rendered by Judicare practitioner to a legal Aid Sa client in an eviction matter	February 2011
5. Fixed asset disposed off, but is still reflected in the asset Register	Investigation of a suspicious deposit slip submitted as proof of payment for a disposed asset.	8 October 2010
6. Break-in at second floor national office Finance Department and the conduct of the corporate services manager.	An investigation of a break-in at National Office Finance Department second floor during the 2010 December year end closure.	16 February 2011
7. Allegation on non-adherence to policies, theft, abuse of Power and conflict of interest	An alleged use of Legal Aid SA’s vehicle by an employee without authorisation; the sale/scrapping of assets without proper authorisation by an employee; and a suspected conflict of interest in awarding a contract to install burglar guards at a Justice Centre.	30 September 2010

aa) Name	bb)Subject matter	cc) Date of conclusion
(B) 2011/12 financial year
1. Thembisa Justice Centre receptionist’s cash stolen from her hand bag.	Investigation of circumstances in which cash was stolen from an employee’s hand bag at a Justice Centre.	23 September 2011
2. Fraud suspected invoices and quotations at Soweto Justice Centre.	Suspected fraudulent invoice and quotations at Justice Centre.	3 June 2011
3. Irregularities relating to the disposal of fixed asset and the management of petty cash at Ermelo Justice Centre.	Suspected irregularities relating to the disposal of fixed asset and the management of petty cash at a Justice Centre.	11 October 2011
4. Agency agreement practitioner MB Popo & company	Suspected fraudulent claim by an Agency Agreement practitioner.	30 November 2011
5. Stolen cellphones at Procurement department.	Disappearance of two cellphones from Procurement Manager’s office. The cellphones were delivered by Vodacom to be distributed to employees who had ordered the phones under the contract Legal Aid SA had with Vodacom	12 October 2011
6. Alleged Soshanguve JCE improper conduct and poor managerial skills	An alleged misconduct by Justice Centre Executive for ill-treating and undermining her subordinates.	3 October 2011
7. Legal Aid SA Principal Attorney suspected of trying to pass work of other practitioners as that of his own for quality assessment purposes.	An alleged attempted fraud by a Legal Aid SA Principal Attorney who tried to claim work of other practitioners as his for quality assessment purposes.	14 July 2011
8. Mr. Makgape Sophia Rammala received R2,000.00 cash from the client’s sister Ms. Fengie Masha	An allegation against a Legal Aid SA legal practitioner based at a Satellite Office for charging a member of public fees for legal assistance given to Legal Aid SA’s client.	25 November 2011

aa) Name	bb)Subject matter	cc) Date of conclusion
(C) 2012/13 financial year
1. Retrieving evidence on 3 hard drives from Pietermaritzburg Justice Centre	A complaint that alleged that a Legal Aid SA Principal Attorney’s computer hard drives contained pornographic files.	9 May 2012
2. Interview questions sent to selected shortlisted job applicants.	A complaint that alleged that a Justice Centre Executive emailed interview questions to the applicant.	4 December 2012
3. Cover quoting from Creative Office Furniture and Impilo Lifestyle	A suspected cover quoting by external bidders for Legal Aid SA work or contract.	14 December 2012
4. Irregularities relating to the disposal of a Toyota Yaris at Ermelo Justice Centre	An allegation that a Legal Aid SA pool vehicle was disposed at a value below the original reserve price.	5 March 2013
5. Description of goods not specified on the invoices for procurement at Nelspruit Justice Centre.	An alleged circumvention and or violation of Legal Aid SA Supply Chain policy and procedures in procuring office grocery.	25 January 2013
(D) 2014/15 financial year
Financial irregularities and conflict of interest at the Pretoria Justice Centre	A suspected existence of conflict of interest when a contract was awarded.	29 July 2014
(E) 2015/16 financial year
1. Forensic investigation on the missing computer at the Kwa-Zulu Natal regional office	Investigation of circumstances in which a laptop computer got missing while it was allocated to and in custody of a Legal Aid employee,	26 May 2015
2. Forensic potential conflict of interest at the Ermelo Justice Centre, Piet Retief satellite office	A suspicion of existence of conflict of interest when a cleaning contract at Justice Centre was awarded.	23 July 2015
3. Forensic report suspected irregular expenditure at Modimolle Justice Centre	A suspicion of occurrence of irregularities in awarding a contract for office refurbishment at Justice Centre.	22 January 2016
4. Forensic potential conflict of interest at the Soweto Justice Centre	A suspected conflict of interest by a legal practitioner.	28 September 2015
5. Alleged conflict of interest at Bloemfontein justice centre	A Legal Aid SA Justice Centre Executive was alleged to owning a company that was doing with Legal Aid SA resulting in conflict of interest.	29 March 2015
(F) 2016/17 financial year
1. Alleged abuse of legal Aid resources	A Legal Aid SA employee was accused of abusing Legal Aid SA resources (computer and photocopying facility) for private matters.	2 June 2016
2. Alleged payment requested by a justice practitioner for legal representation services	A former Legal Aid SA employee was accused of having requested payment for his services in representing a client on behalf of Legal Aid SA. The employee had retired when the accusations were made.	6 June 2016
3. suspected overstatement of claims by a Judicare Practitioner at Vryheid Justice Centre	A Judicare Practitioner was suspected to have submitted fraudulent and overstated claim for work that was done on behalf of Legal Aid SA.	15 June 2016
4. Suspected use of pool vehicle without authorization at the Queenstown Justice Centre	A Legal Aid SA employee was alleged to have used a pool vehicle for private business.	27 June 2016
5. Client money received by a paralegal and not paid over to the client at Musina satellite office	A Legal Aid SA Paralegal was alleged to have taken money that was meant for the client in the sale of an RDP house.	15 August 2016

(b) There were no external forensic reports in the period 2009 to date.

3. Department of Correctional Services:

BOSASA contract investigation done by SIU and former CFO was criminally charged and during disciplinary hearing he resigned.

Medical Aid fraud (MEDCOR) investigation against 702 officials done by Special Investigation Unit. Officials were criminally charged and internally they were given final written warnings. The money fraudulently obtained was recovered from the doctors.

Social grant investigation against SASSA beneficiaries against the officials was done by SIU. Officials failed to cancel grant benefits from SASSA when employed by the department or SASSA failed to stop the grant immediately after the employment of the officials. All the money owed to SASSA was paid back and disciplinary steps were taken against the involved officials.

Fraudulent matric certificates. The SIU completed investigations of 22 Department of Correctional Services officials who submitted fraudulent matric certificates. Twenty of the said officials have been dismissed.

Electronic monitoring investigation was done by KPMG. The KPMG investigation report was forwarded to SIU for further investigation. The SIU is still pursuing the matter further.

The Masetlaoka Scott and Wilson (MSW) contract still under investigation. The investigation is in progress. SIU is pursuing the matter. One official is internally charged.

Reply:

1. The Special Investigating Unit (SIU) is currently conducting investigations authorised under four (4) proclamations involving the Department of Public Works (DPW). Details of the investigations are provided in the table below:

PROCLAMATION	PROVINCE	REASONS FOR THE INVESTIGATIONS	EXPECTED DATE TO BE FINALISED
Proclamation No. R.54, 2014. There are seventeen (17) matters listed as well as an additional thirteen (13) matters listed in the amendment to the abovementioned Proclamation, amended to Proclamation No. R44 of 2015.	Western Cape	The Investigation relates to the refurbishment of ministerial homes in and around Cape Town at allegedly vastly inflated costs. The Proclamation concerned confines the investigation to: (i) the procurement of goods and services; and (ii) unauthorized, irregular and/or fruitless and wasteful expenditure incurred in relation to the DPW projects listed in the two (2) Proclamations.	31 March 2017
2. Proclamation No. R59 of 2014 dated 27 August 2014	National Department of Public Works	1. Procurement and Administration of leases which is not fair, competitive, transparent, equitable or cost effective; 2. Irregularities, malpractices or mal-administration in the affairs of DPW; 3. Any related unauthorized, irregular or fruitless and wasteful expenditure; 4. Theft, fraud and/or corruption by private individuals/landlords; and 5. Procurement irregularities relating to service providers. Currently, 649 leases are under investigation out of a total of 2 176 leases. The provincial breakdown is as follows: (i) Eastern Cape – 142; (ii) Western Cape – 48; (iii) Mpumalanga – 105; (iv) Free State – 100; (v) Kwa-Zulu Natal – 54; (vi) Gauteng – 136; (vii) North-West – 37; and (viii) Mthatha – 27.	March 2018
3.Proclamation No. R38 of 2010	Gauteng	(i) Allegations of irregular Supply Chain Management award in terms of Section 217 of the Constitution as well as fruitless and wasteful expenditure; and (ii) A lease investigation where we are in negotiations with the current landlord and DPW on overpayments to the landlord both in Gauteng.	Based on these matters (civil proceedings), SIU cannot anticipate the end date.
4. Proclamation No. R27 of 2015	Kwa-Zulu Natal	(i) Allegations of irregular appointment of service provider - 4 matters; (ii) Allegations of fruitless and wasteful expenditure - 1 matter; (iii) Allegations of fraud and corruption - 3 matters; and (iv) Allegations of conflict of interest - 420 matters.	September 2017
	Western Cape	(i) Allegations of fraud and corruption - 2 matters; and (ii) Allegations of conflict of interest - 230 matters.
	Eastern Cape	Allegations of conflict of interest - 344 matters
	Pretoria Office	(i) Allegations of "cover quoting" - 7 matters; (ii) Allegations of irregularities in the Security Project - 1 matter; (iii) Allegations of irregular expenditures during the 2014/15 regularity audit - 1 matter; (iv) Allegations of fraud and corruption - 2 matters; and (v) Allegations of conflict of interest – 2 705 matters.
	Bloemfontein Office	(i) Allegations of poor service and non-delivery by service providers - 23 matters; (ii) Fraud and corruption - 1 matter; (iii) Allegations of conflict of interest - 677 matters; and (iv) Assisting the Hawks on 6 matters.

Reply:

1. (a) Yes, Judge Motata is still on special leave with full pay.

(b) The complaints that were lodged against Judge Motata were referred by the Judicial Service Commission to a Judicial Conduct Tribunal to be investigated and reported on. The proceedings by the Judicial Conduct Tribunal were kept in abeyance following a series of legal challenges relating to the constitutionality of section 24 of the JSC Act which empowers the Tribunal President to appoint a member of the National Prosecuting Authority to collect and adduce evidence on behalf of the Tribunal. Following the conclusion of the legal challenges at the Constitutional Court, Judge Motata launched his own application challenging the constitutionality of the amendments passed by Parliament in 2008 which brought about the complaints handling mechanism against Judges. This application has resulted in the proceedings at the Judicial Conduct Tribunal being postponed until the finalisation of Judge Motata’s application.

2. The matter is to be determined by the Judicial Conduct Tribunal however Judge Motata’s special leave is not subject to a condition that Judge would have to repay the moneys earned if he is found guilty of gross misconduct by the Judicial Conduct Tribunal.

3. The total amount that has been paid to Judge Motata for the period 01 January 2007 to 31 October 2016 is R13 919 622 .36

Reply:

(a) (i) The Department of Justice and Constitutional Development (DOJ&CD) did not spend anything on African News Network 7 channel during the (aaa) 2015/16 financial year nor (bbb) since 1 April to 31 August 2016.

(aa) The DOJ&CD did not spend on SABC television channels during the (aaa) 2015/16 financial year nor (bbb) since 1 April to 31 August 2016.

(bb) (aaa) In the 2015/16 financial year, the Department undertook a campaign to invite children and deserving relatives of Truth and Reconciliation (TRC) Campaign identified victims to apply for educational assistance. In support of this campaign, the DOJ&CD spent a total of R798 817.95.

SERVICE PROVIDER	TOTAL COST	RADIO STATIONS	COST PER STATION	CAMPAIGN
SABC Radio	R 798 817.95	Ukhozi FM	R 221 692.95	TRC Education Assistance Regulations
		Umhlobo Wenene FM	R 129 352.95	TRC Education Assistance Regulations
		Lesedi FM	R 145 666.35	TRC Education Assistance Regulations
		Motsweding FM	R 106 652.70	TRC Education Assistance Regulations
		Limpopo Combo	R 131 738.40	TRC Education Assistance Regulations
		Mpumalanga Combo	R 63 714.60	TRC Education Assistance Regulations

(bbb) The Department did not spend anything on SABC radio stations since 1 April to 31 August 2016.

(iii) The DOJ&CD did not spend on national commercial radio stations during (aaa) the 2015/16 financial year nor (bbb) since 1 April to 31 August 2016.

(iv) (aa) The DOJ&CD did not spend any money on community television stations during the (aaa) 2015/16 financial year nor (bbb) since 1 April to 31 August 2016.

(bb) Background to spending: In the 2015/2016 financial year, the DOJ&CD, in partnership with the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA), initiated an educational campaign on community radio called Let’s Talk Justice: Live Your Rights.

The programme, which is currently in its second season, is facilitated through the Government Communication and Information System (GCIS) and broadcast every Thursday between 18h05 to 19h05. The programme is linked to 65 community radio stations and covers a range of justice related topics such as domestic violence, maintenance, sexual offences, expungement of criminal records, Constitutional rights, and etcetera.

The programme is one of the DOJ&CD’s efforts to educate the public on how to access justice services. It promotes a free flow of information, open dialogue, transparency, and accountability, all of which are fundamental tenets of a thriving democracy.

It also sought to encourage the public to unite in the protection of human rights and urge them to exercise their responsibilities as reflected in the Constitution.

Financial implications:

(aaa) In the first season of the Let’s Talk Justice programme, the DOJ&CD invested a total of R7 572 000.00 which covered a total of 29 episodes that were linked to 63 participating community radio stations across the country.

(bbb) In the second season (2016/17), the DOJ&CD has budgeted a total of R10 072 000.00 for 26 episodes that are linked to 65 participating community radio stations across the country. This means that one episode is broadcasted in 65 community radio station. Each radio station is charging R6000 per episode and there is a satellite cost amounting to R27 360. The satellite is important as it enables GCIS to link an episode into all 65 community radio stations. The programme enables us to reach an estimated listenership of 1 400 000. This translates to just over R3 per listener. This financial year’s programme commenced on 9 June 2016, and by end of August 2016, 11 episodes had already been coordinated.

(b)  (A)(aaa) Regarding the National Prosecuting Authority, the NPA contributed R4, 8 million to the community radio awareness campaign Let’s Talk Justice. The Department’s Public Education and Communication’s Unit overall response in this regard will therefore cover the NPA in respect of the 2015/16 financial year. No other expenditure was incurred outside the above-mentioned campaign in 2015/16, and (bbb) there has been no expenditure on advertising since 1 April 2016 to date, due to budget constraints.

(B) (aaa) During the financial year 2015/16, the Special Investigating Unit (SIU) has not incurred cost on radio or TV advertising. All the interviews done were a free service.

(C) LEGAL AID SOUTH AFRICA

I wish to inform the Honorable Member that Legal Aid SA spent the following total amounts in relation to advertising:

Financial Year	Medium	Advertisement Spent
	Television
(aaa) 2015/2016	(i) ANN7	R0
	(ii) SA Broadcasting Corporation
	(aa) Television channels	R660 750
	SABC 1	R146 250
	SABC 2	R364 500
	SABC 3	R150 000
	(bb) Radio stations	R465 899
	Lotus FM
	RSG
	SAFM
	Ukhozi FM
	Umhlobo Wenene FM
	Lesedi FM
	Thobela FM
	Ikwekwezi FM
	Ligwalagwala FM
	Munghana Lonene FM
	Phalaphala FM
	(iii) National Commercial Radio stations	R0
	(iv) Community	R0
	(aa) Television	R0
	(bb) Radio stations	R0
Total for 2015/16		R1 126 649
(bbb) Since 1 April 2016	SABC Radio	R933 840
	SABC TV	R1 215 000
	Committed expenditure in 2016/17
	E-TV	R600 000
	SABC Radio	R935 404
	SABC TV	R684 000
Total for 2016/17		R4 368 244

(a) The Office of the Chief Justice did not spend on advertising on the (i) Africa News Network 7 channel, (ii) SA Broadcasting Corporation (aa) television channels and (bb) radio stations, (iii) national commercial radio stations and (iv) community (aa) television and (bb) radio stations (aaa) for the 2015-16 financial year and (bbb) as well for the current financial year.

Reply:

(a) The Chief Financial Officer of the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development is in possession of the following formal qualifications:

     (i) Senior Certificate;

     (ii) Baccalaurreus Computationis (B.Compt);

     (iii) Honneursbaccalaureus Computationis (Hons. B.Compt); and

    (iv) Magister Commercii (M.Com).

(b) The Director-General of the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development is in possession of the following formal qualifications:

     (i) Senior Certificate; and

     (ii) Baccallaureus Procurationis (Law).

(a) The Chief Financial Officer for the Office of the Chief Justice is Mr Casper Nicolaas Coetzer. Mr Coetzer has the following qualifications:

• Matric from Bergsig Hoerskool, Rustenburg
• Bachelor Degree in Commerce obtained from the University of South Africa;
• Certificate in Senior Management from the University of Pretoria;
• Certificate in Organization and Work Study from the former Pretoria Technikon;
• Certificate in Contract Compliance and Performance Monitoring from the Institute for Public Private Partnerships, Washington, DC.

(b) The Secretary-General for the Office of the Chief Justice, Ms Memme Sejosengwe has the following qualifications:

• Matric from Barolong High School in Mafikeng
• Bachelor of Law Degree from the University of North West;
• Certificate in Organization and Work Study from the Pretoria Technikon;
• Advanced Diploma in Labour Law from Rand Afrikaans University;
• Executive Development Programme from the University of South Africa (UNISA) Graduate School of Business Leadership (SBL)
• Case Flow Management Training from National Centre for States Courts (NSCC), Williamsburg, Virginia, USA

 

Reply:

(a) (i) The Department of Justice and Constitutional Development (DOJ&CD) did not spend anything on African News Network 7 channel during the (aaa) 2015/16 financial year nor (bbb) since 1 April to 31 August 2016.

    (ii) (aa) The DOJ&CD did not spend on SABC television channels during the (aaa) 2015/16 financial year nor (bbb) since 1 April to 31 August    2016.

   (bb) (aaa) In the 2015/16 financial year, the Department undertook a campaign to invite children and deserving relatives of Truth and Reconciliation (TRC) Campaign identified victims to apply for educational assistance. In support of this campaign, the DOJ&CD spent a total of R798 817.95.

SERVICE PROVIDER	TOTAL COST	RADIO STATIONS	COST PER STATION	CAMPAIGN
SABC Radio	R 798 817.95	Ukhozi FM	R 221 692.95	TRC Education Assistance Regulations
		Umhlobo Wenene FM	R 129 352.95	TRC Education Assistance Regulations
		Lesedi FM	R 145 666.35	TRC Education Assistance Regulations
		Motsweding FM	R 106 652.70	TRC Education Assistance Regulations
		Limpopo Combo	R 131 738.40	TRC Education Assistance Regulations
		Mpumalanga Combo	R 63 714.60	TRC Education Assistance Regulations

(bbb) The Department did not spend anything on SABC radio stations since 1 April to 31 August 2016.

1. The DOJ&CD did not spend on national commercial radio stations during (aaa) the 2015/16 financial year nor (bbb) since 1 April to 31 August 2016.
2. (aa) The DOJ&CD did not spend any money on community television stations during the (aaa) 2015/16 financial year nor (bbb) since 1 April to 31 August 2016.

(bb) Background to spending: In the 2015/2016 financial year, the DOJ&CD, in partnership with the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA), initiated an educational campaign on community radio called Let’s Talk Justice: Live Your Rights.

The programme, which is currently in its second season, is facilitated through the Government Communication and Information System (GCIS) and broadcast every Thursday between 18h05 to 19h05. The programme is linked to 65 community radio stations and covers a range of justice related topics such as domestic violence, maintenance, sexual offences, expungement of criminal records, Constitutional rights, and etcetera.

The programme is one of the DOJ&CD’s efforts to educate the public on how to access justice services. It promotes a free flow of information, open dialogue, transparency, and accountability, all of which are fundamental tenets of a thriving democracy.

It also sought to encourage the public to unite in the protection of human rights and urge them to exercise their responsibilities as reflected in the Constitution.

Financial implications:

(aaa) In the first season of the Let’s Talk Justice programme, the DOJ&CD invested a total of R7 572 000.00 which covered a total of 29 episodes that were linked to 63 participating community radio stations across the country.

(bbb) In the second season (2016/17), the DOJ&CD has budgeted a total of R10 072 000.00 for 26 episodes that are linked to 65 participating community radio stations across the country. This means that one episode is broadcasted in 65 community radio station. Each radio station is charging R6000 per episode and there is a satellite cost amounting to R27 360. The satellite is important as it enables GCIS to link an episode into all 65 community radio stations. The programme enables us to reach an estimated listenership of 1 400 000. This translates to just over R3 per listener. This financial year’s programme commenced on 9 June 2016, and by end of August 2016, 11 episodes had already been coordinated.

1. (A)(aaa) Regarding the National Prosecuting Authority, the NPA contributed R4, 8 million to the community radio awareness campaign Let’s Talk Justice. The Department’s Public Education and Communication’s Unit overall response in this regard will therefore cover the NPA in respect of the 2015/16 financial year. No other expenditure was incurred outside the above-mentioned campaign in 2015/16, and (bbb) there has been no expenditure on advertising since 1 April 2016 to date, due to budget constraints.

(B) (aaa) During the financial year 2015/16, the Special Investigating Unit (SIU) has not incurred cost on radio or TV advertising. All the interviews done were a free service.

(C) LEGAL AID SOUTH AFRICA

I wish to inform the Honorable Member that Legal Aid SA spent the following total amounts in relation to advertising:

Financial Year	Medium	Advertisement Spent
	Television
(aaa) 2015/2016	(i) ANN7	R0
	(ii) SA Broadcasting Corporation
	(aa) Television channels	R660 750
	SABC 1	R146 250
	SABC 2	R364 500
	SABC 3	R150 000
	(bb) Radio stations	R465 899
	Lotus FM
	RSG
	SAFM
	Ukhozi FM
	Umhlobo Wenene FM
	Lesedi FM
	Thobela FM
	Ikwekwezi FM
	Ligwalagwala FM
	Munghana Lonene FM
	Phalaphala FM
	(iii) National Commercial Radio stations	R0
	(iv) Community	R0
	(aa) Television	R0
	(bb) Radio stations	R0
Total for 2015/16		R1 126 649
(bbb) Since 1 April 2016	SABC Radio	R933 840
	SABC TV	R1 215 000
	Committed expenditure in 2016/17
	E-TV	R600 000
	SABC Radio	R935 404
	SABC TV	R684 000
Total for 2016/17		R4 368 244

1. The Office of the Chief Justice did not spend on advertising on the (i) Africa News Network 7 channel, (ii) SA Broadcasting Corporation (aa) television channels and (bb) radio stations, (iii) national commercial radio stations and (iv) community (aa) television and (bb) radio stations (aaa) for the 2015-16 financial year and (bbb) as well for the current financial year.

Reply:

1. Mr V Madonsela was appointed as Director-General [DG]/Head of Department [HoD] in the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development [DoJ&CD] in May 2016. The HoD has signed a performance agreement for the 2016/2017 performance cycle.

    (a) The Department of Justice and Constitutional Development does not have an HoD who did not sign a performance agreement.

    (b) Not applicable

    (c) Not applicable

     (d) Not applicable

      (i) The current HoD was only appointed in May 2016 and no performance assessment has been required to be conducted thus far.

      (ii) Not applicable.

2. The HoD of the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development has a signed performance agreement since his appointment.

     (a) N/A

      (b) N/A

3. The HoD of the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development was appointed in May 2016, and will only be assessed for performance during the 2016/2017 performance cycle after the end of the cycle.

    (a) N/A

     (b) N/A

Regarding the Performance Agreement of Ms M Sejosengwe, the Secretary-General of the Department of the Office of the Chief Justice, I wish to inform you as follows:

1) (a) The Secretary-General last signed the Performance Agreement in 2013/14 financial year with the former Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development, Mr Jeff Radebe, after consultation with the Chief Justice. From 2014/15 financial year, the Secretary-General has not signed a Performance Agreement to date.

(b) The reason is that the Secretary-General is in a unique position, as she reports to both the Chief Justice of the Republic of South Africa as Head of his Office as well as the Minister of Justice and Correctional Services, as the Executive Authority of the Department of the Office of the Chief Justice and Judicial Administration. The Minister of Justice and Correctional Services and the Chief Justice is at present, deliberating on a Framework of Engagement for purposes of conferral on joint decision-making/consultation regarding amongst other matters, the Performance Agreement of the Secretary-General. As soon as this Framework of Engagement has been agreed upon and finalized, the Secretary-General’s Performance Agreement, will be signed.

2) No, the Secretary-General has not received any performance bonus since her appointment.

3) In respect of 2013/14, no performance assessment was conducted and no bonuses were received by the Secretary-General.

(1) Yes. National Commissioner: Mr Z. Modise, A Performance agreement for financial year 2015/16 was signed.

(1)(a) Not applicable

(1)(b) Not applicable

(1)(c) Not applicable as a performance agreement was signed.

(1)(d) Not applicable as a performance agreement was signed.

(1)(d)(i) No performance assessment was conducted as at the time of responding to this question.

(1)(d)(ii) Not applicable

(2) No HOD in the Department received a performance bonus in the 2015/2016 Financial Year.

(3) No HOD received a performance bonus in the department for the past three financial years.

Reply:

(1) All the inmates incarcerated in the Middledrift Correctional Centre in the Eastern Cape are accommodated in conditions that conform to the regulations issued in terms of section 7(1) of the Correctional Services Act, Act 111 of 1998, as amended.

(1)(a) There are no inmates that are not accommodated in terms of the specified regulations.

(1)(b) On 31 August 2016, a total of 1277 sentenced offenders were accommodated against approved accommodation of 646. This represents an overcrowding level of 97.67%. The aforementioned pose a challenge to fully comply with the regulations.

(1)(c) Inmates are not accommodated in contravention of the regulations, but due to overcrowding and lack of bed space in the region there is no full compliance with the regulations.

(1)(d) The number of sentenced offenders is managed by applying the following dimensions within the multi-pronged strategy to manage overcrowding:

• Improving effective and appropriate use of conversion of sentences to community correctional supervision;

• Timeous consideration of offenders for possible release on parole; and
• Transfers between correctional centres in an attempt to establish some degree of evenness of overcrowding.

(2) Yes, the centre has been affected by interruptions in the supply of water.

(2)(a) The institution had the problem with water sewage and sanitation from 1 March 2016 to date.

(2)(b) Local municipality supplies water to the correctional centre through the water tanks. The office held a meeting with Amathole District Municipality on the matter was discussed at length and the resolution was that the Amathole District Municipality will need to re-instate the water supply from Sandile Dam which was closed off as the current water supply is a challenged. The long term solution is that the centre can plan to build its own water storage to curb such challenges in future.

Reply:

No, the Department has not successfully implemented all the recommendations, however the department was successful in implementing the following major areas:

• Human resource related recommendations:
  • Strategies were developed in order to deal with-
  • appointments made due to union influence;
  • failure to attract external skills;
  • ineffective transformation;
  • ineffective disciplinary code;
  • merit award system;
  • disciplinary enquiries;
  • recruitment;
  • abuse of power and sexual harassment;
  • The department has also migrated to the seven-day working week as recommended.

• • Monies relating to Medcor fraud were recovered.

• Gangsterism
  • A gang management strategy was formulated and is currently being implemented

• Correctional centre security
  • Minimum Security standards adopted and implemented
  • Access control in centres has been increased with CCTV’s installed at access control points. The new generation correctional centres also have security technology installed as part of the infrastructure of the centres.

• Parole and conversion of sentences
  • A total of 53 parole boards have been established and it is expected for these structures to meet regularly to assess those eligible for parole. A medical parole board has also been established to focus only on cases for which parole may be awarded based on an offenders’ medical condition. The review board was established with the sole aim of reviewing complaints related to awarding and denial of parole. The National Council for Correctional Services (NCCS) has also been established.

• Sexual violence in correctional centres
• A policy to address sexual abuse of inmates in DCS facilities was developed;
• Post Exposure prophylaxis is administered;
• Regular health education is conducted for inmates;

• The independence of the Judicial Inspectorate was strengthened by amendment the Correctional Services Act which now provides for a Chief Executive Officer to manage the office of the Judicial Inspectorate under the authority of the inspecting judge.

The following actions were taken in the supply chain environment:

• Internal controls
  • To ensure proper control mechanisms a unit specialising in internal control and compliance matters has been established. This unit is able to regularly assess whether the necessary controls are being implemented within the department.

• Management of investigations
  • The specialised departmental investigating unit has been established and is constantly making follow up where investigations are concerned.

The Department has not fully implemented the recommendation regarding the treatment of offenders mainly due to the fact that increased incidents of crime result in higher numbers of convictions (incarceration) which then means correctional facilities are increasingly overcrowded.

As at the end of 2015/16 correctional centres were 34% overcrowded. The high overcrowding has a consequence of overstretching resources including staff.

In an attempt to reduce levels of overcrowding the Department of Correctional Services (DCS) follows a multi-pronged strategy which amongst others includes:

• Managing levels of Remand Detainees through the Integrated Justice System Case Management Task Team and Inter-Sectoral Committee on Child Justice;

• Managing levels of sentenced offenders through improving effective and appropriate use of conversion of sentence to community correctional

• supervision, release on parole and transfers between correctional centres to attempt to establish some degree of evenness of overcrowding;

The multi-pronged overcrowding strategy enhances efforts to minimize the negative effects of overcrowding in correctional centres.

Efforts are constantly made to ensure that the recommendations are as far as possible implemented.

Reply:

1. The table below provides information on the protection orders issued in the country’s courts in terms of the Domestic Violence Act, 1998 (Act 116 of 1998):

Protection Orders Made Final: Section 6	Financial Year	Grand Total
Provinces	2012/13	2013/14	2014/15
Eastern Cape	13 567	14 075	13 382	41 024
Free State	5 790	6 625	6 235	18 650
Gauteng	17 962	16 344	15 364	49 670
Kwa-Zulu Natal	13 511	13 740	13 551	40 802
Limpopo	7 931	8 014	8 462	24 407
Mpumalanga	6 276	6 362	6 436	19 074
North-West	4 548	5 424	5 658	15 630
Northern Cape	2 730	3 701	4 429	10 860
Western Cape	16 615	14 219	13 668	44 502
Grand Total	88 930	88 504	87 185	264 619

2. My Department has placed an additional focus on assisting all victims throughout the various services we render as part of the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development’s strategic and policy direction. The protection of women and children remains an important element of the justice system and from the statistics furnished above clearly show that the courts have been issuing protection orders when and where required.

Reply:

No, Mchunu Attorneys were not utilised for legal advice and/or advisory services with respect to the Public Protector’s reports mentioned above.

(aa) and (bb) Not applicable.

Reply:

1. I have enquired from the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) which is the institution that is mandated in law to prosecute matters in the courts, whether they are aware of such incidents where the SAPS could be referring some criminal offences directly to the courts without conducting a proper investigation and making an entry in the crime register, and they have indicated they have no knowledge of such. There are specific Standing Orders issued by the SAPS as to the registering and investigations of cases. The normal procedures relating to criminal matters are that the police official will register the case on the SAPS Crime Administration System (CAS) at the police station. The complainant will thereafter receive a CAS number that needs to be kept as reference for future enquiries regarding the criminal case.

The completed case docket relating to the CAS number is allocated to a police detective who will carry out the investigation. The detective in charge of the particular case will complete the investigation and then promote the docket to the relevant court for prosecution with the CAS number as the SAPS reference number. This CAS number will then also be entered on the charge sheet and docket so that there is a linkage between the court record and docket information. No cases will be accepted without it being registered. If a matter is taken to court, but the investigation into the criminal matter is incomplete, the matter may be postponed and referred back by the prosecutor to the investigating officer, with guidance as to follow-up investigations.

(a) and (b) not applicable

2. No statement is required.

Reply:

The National Prosecuting Authority is still considering the matter, no decision has been taken whether or not to prosecute any person(s) in relation to the matter.

Reply:

1. No.

(1) (a) The offender in question was not segregated for more than 60 days. He was segregated on 12 August 2016 after he stabbed officials at Mangaung Correctional Centre. The offender was in segregation for 7 days which expired on 19 August 2016 and will be reviewed.

(1) (b) No, the offender was never segregated.

2. The first mentioned offender stabbed officials at Mangaung Correctional Centre and the matter is under investigation. Therefore, he does not qualify to be transferred to other centres at this stage. The second offender did apply for a transfer. However, due to his security classification, he does not qualify for a transfer.

Reply:

1. The National Director of Public Prosecutions has (indeed) received the report prepared by Advocate John Myburgh SC entitled African Bank Limited: Investigation in terms of section 69A of the Banks Act, 94 of 1990.

    (a) The said report was handed by DR Johann de Jager the General Counsel of the South African Reserve Bank.

    (b) The said report was handed to the National Prosecuting Authority on 17 May 2016.

2. The said report has not yet been referred for any further investigation. The report consists of over 833 pages and is currently being perused by the prosecutor who has been assigned to the matter. Any action required will be taken after the perusal of the report has been completed.

Reply:

In view of the fact that the Minister for Women in the Presidency is responsible for the administration of the Commission on Gender Equality Act, 1993,( Act 39 of 1996) it is recommended that Honourable Member approach the Minister for Women in the Presidency for the said information.

The Commission for Gender Equality could further be approached directly for the submission of this information. Section 181(5) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, provides that the institutions strengthening constitutional democracy in the Republic, including the Commission for Gender Equality, are accountable to the National Assembly, and must report on their activities and the performance of their functions to the Assembly at least once a year.

 

Reply:

I wish to inform the Honourable Member that the National Prosecuting Authority has informed me that:

1. The said docket was indeed forwarded to the Deputy Director Public Prosecutions: Nelspruit for a decision on 31 March 2016.
2. The docket was returned to the Senior Public Prosecutor on 10 May 2016 with a request for further investigation, who in turn sent an instruction to the South African Police Services to conduct further investigation as directed.

Reply:

As advised, I wish to inform the Honourable member that the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) has premised its application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal against the judgment and order of the full bench of the Gauteng Division of the High Court, in the matter of Acting National Director of Public Prosecutions and 2 Others v Democratic Alliance, which was handled down on 29 April 2016, on six (6) grounds which are set out in its papers, filed on 23 May 2016. The application for leave to appeal is set down for hearing on 10 June 2016.

The effect of the decision of the full bench of the Gauteng High Court is that, absent an application for leave to appeal, would fall upon the National Director of Public Prosecutions (NDPP) to consider the matter.

On 23 May 2016, the NDPP took the public into his confidence in announcing the NPA’s decision to appeal the decision of the full bench of the Gauteng High Court and went to great lengths to explain the NPA’s decision.

The issues raised in the application for leave to appeal are of great constitutional import and relate to the powers of the NDPP. The judgement and order being appealed against impinge upon the independence of the NPA and its powers to make prosecutorial decisions. This has raised vital constitutional questions of peculiar public interest.

In the first ground of appeal, the NPA submitted that the Court erred in finding that Mr Mpshe, by not referring the complaint of abuse of process and the related allegations against Mr McCarthy to Court, rendered his decision irrational. In effect, the Court found that Mr Mpshe acted ultra vires his powers as vested in section 179(5)(d) of the Constitution and section 22(2) of the National Prosecuting Authority Act 32 of 1998 (‘the NPA Act’). In the foreign case referred to by the Court, namely HKSAR v Lee Ming Tee, case FACC no.1 (2003), the Hong Kong Court conceded that the question is ‘debatable’ and went no further than expressing what it considered to be ‘the better view’.

As a matter of logic, there seems to be no reason why the head of the prosecuting service may not take it upon himself to determine that the abuse was so egregious as to warrant discontinuation, even in the absence of a direct causal nexus between the abuse and the prospects of a fair trial. In fact, the NDPP has taken an oath to protect and defend the Constitution. His duty is to protect the institutional integrity of the institution. He is best positioned to weigh the seriousness of abuse within his own hierarchy. If, as in this matter, the NDPP misconducts himself in the internal review of prosecution, it is always open for the matter to be taken on review.

 

It is a trite principle that a prosecutor is vested with a very broad discretion. The public interest must always factor in his determinations – to the extent that it is not obligatory that every person he considers guilty must be charged. In argument on behalf of the First and Second Respondents, reference was made to Regina (Corner House Research & Another) v Director of the Serious Fraud Office [2008] 3 WLR 568. One finds reference to the principle that there is no rule that criminal offences must automatically be the subject of prosecution. In line with the principles of the common law, there is no principle of compulsory prosecution: prosecutors always have discretion whether or not to institute a prosecution and, if so for which offence.

It is emphasised that in the present case, the senior management of the NPA formed the view that it was not in the public interest to proceed with the prosecution in light of the conduct of Mr McCarthy. It would be artificial and make no sense for the prosecutor who has formed the view that the prosecution should not be proceeded with, to wait for the accused to bring an application to stay the prosecution and to then acquiesce.

In the second ground of appeal, the Court found that the envisaged prosecution against Mr Zuma was not tainted by the allegations against Mr McCarthy. In this regard, the NPA submitted that the Court should have found that the prosecutorial process was tainted and that it was not irrational to decide to discontinue the prosecution. The Court stated that Mr Zuma should face the charges as outlined in the indictment. In this regard, the NPA submitted that the Court erred.

This finding by the Court is an inappropriate transgression of the separation-of-powers doctrine, which precludes the courts from impermissibly assuming the functions that fall within the domain of the executive. In terms of the Constitution, the NDPP is the authority mandated to prosecute crime. A court can only be allowed to interfere with this constitutional scheme on rare occasions and for compelling reasons. The NPA submitted that no such reasons exist in this matter.

In so far as the third ground of appeal is concerned, the Court referred to Mr Mpshe’s reference in his media address to the case of R v Latif [1996] 1 WLR 104, in which the Court stated that the Judge must weigh in the balance the public interest in ensuring that those who are charged with grave crimes should be tried against the competing interest in not conveying the impression that the Court will adopt the approach that the end justifies any means.

The Court referred to the ‘balancing of two imperatives’, and said that Mr Mpshe omitted to consider or deal with the second imperative in his media release (namely, protecting the public from serious crime). In this regard, the NPA submitted that the Court erred in finding that Mr Mpshe did not balance the two imperatives. In Mr Mpshe’s media statement, under the heading ‘Background’, Mr Mpshe stated that the NPA had received representations pertaining to the following issues:

• The substantive merits;
• The fair trial defences;
• The practical implications and considerations of continued prosecution; and
• The policy aspects militating against prosecution

Mr Mpshe continued:

“I need to state upfront that we could not find anything with regard to the first three grounds that militate against a continuation of the prosecution, and I therefore do not intend to deal in depth with those three grounds. I will focus on the fourth ground which I consider to be the most pertinent for purposes of my decision ...”

In this regard the NPA submitted that it is therefore clear that Mr Mpshe did consider the merits. But for the manipulation of the process, the prosecution would have continued on the merits. Mr Mpshe made it clear that he considered that the public interest factor outweighed the continued prosecution of Mr Zuma, notwithstanding that the prosecutors felt firmly about the merits of the case.

It needs to be emphasized that the NDPP is vested with a discretion which is his alone to exercise provided he is not mala fide. Even if his decision is not one which someone else or the Court would have taken, and even if it was unreasonable, it is not a basis to set it aside, absent irrationality. In R v Latif, supra, 112 F, Lord Steyn said:

“It is well established that the court has the power to stay proceedings in two categories of case, namely (i) where it will be impossible to give the accused a fair trial, and (ii) where it offends the court's sense of justice and propriety to be asked to try the accused in the particular circumstances of the case. In the first category of case, if the court concludes that an accused cannot receive a fair trial, it will stay the proceedings without more. No question of the balancing of competing interests arises. In the second category of case, the court is concerned to protect the integrity of the criminal justice system”.

The Court found that once Mr Mpshe had said the alleged conduct of Mr McCarthy had not affected the merits of the charges against Mr Zuma, cadit quaestio, there was no rational connection between the need to protect the integrity of the NPA and the decision to discontinue the prosecution against Mr Zuma. In this regard, the NPA submitted that the Court erred. The NPA further submitted that where the rule of law is undermined, it may be rational to stop the prosecution.

There is ample authority to the effect that conduct amounting to an abuse of process is not confined to that which precludes a fair trial; and this proposition is also a necessary indicant of the rule of law.

In so far as the fourth ground of appeal is concerned, the NPA submitted that the Court erred in finding that ‘the essence’ of the argument on behalf of the First and Second Respondents was that, having regard to the Browse Mole report criticising Mr McCarthy’s conduct in leaking information to the media, and the contents of the transcript of certain telephone conversations, Mr Mpshe was justified in deciding to discontinue the prosecution of Mr Zuma and that his decision was rational.

In this regard the NPA made the following submissions:

• It was rather the ‘First and Second Respondents’ case that, contrary to the NPA’s statutory obligation to make independent prosecutorial decisions, Mr McCarthy influenced and made decisions related to the timing of the prosecution that were intended to harm Mr Zuma’s chances of successfully challenging the former President, Mr Mbeki at the Polokwane electoral conference for the position of African National Congress (ANC) President, and boosting Mr Mbeki’s prospects of retaining his tenure as such.
• The NPA process had been abused for political reasons. Mr McCarthy and Mr Ngcuka manipulated the NPA to assist Mr Mbeki in his battle against Mr Zuma. The impugned decision to discontinue the prosecution was intended, inter alia, to send a clear message that political interference in the work of the NPA would not be tolerated.
• In essence the First and Second Respondents case was that the conduct of Mr McCarthy, who, qua Director of Special Operations, was in effect the head of the prosecution authority for purposes of the case against Mr Zuma, was so egregious, and the process so tainted, that it was not in the public interest to pursue the prosecution. Even to the extent that the Court might have differed as to the particular manner in which Mr Mpshe exercised his discretion, it was not open to displace his determination, namely, that it was more important to restore and maintain the integrity and independence of the prosecution authority than to pursue the conviction of a single individual, no matter how prominent.
• The main reason for opposing the application was that Mr McCarthy unduly influenced and interfered with the service of the indictment for political reasons. This found its way into Mr Mpshe’s address to the media on 6 April 2009, when he referred to Messrs McCarthy and Ngcuka having manipulated the timing of the envisaged service of the indictment to Mr Zuma for political reasons.
• Far from being, as erroneously found by the Court a quo to be, the essence of the case of the First and Second Respondents, the Browse Mole report was simply evidence to demonstrate that Mr McCarthy had for some time followed an agenda to besmirch Mr Zuma, with a view to cementing the position of Mr Mbeki. It is emphasized that it was Mr McCarthy who instituted an investigation against Mr Zuma in terms of section 28(1)(a) of the NPA Act. The Browse Mole report simply demonstrated the unethical conduct of Mr McCarthy.

In so far as the fifth ground of appeal is concerned, the NPA submitted that the Court erred in finding that the form of censure Mr Mpshe chose, by discontinuing the prosecution, failed to demonstrate a connection or linkage to the alleged conduct of Mr McCarthy.

The principle of legality requires that the exercise of public power must be rationally related to the purpose for which the power was given. Mr Mpshe, as the Acting NDPP, had the power to discontinue the prosecution. The NPA submitted that the Court erred in finding that he did not. His decision was indeed rationally related to the purpose for which the power was conferred. The purpose of that power in this context may be to guard against manipulation, and ensure that all persons who are the subject of a prosecution, are dealt with in a manner which is fair, and by an independent authority not suborned or manipulated for political needs; further that the prosecution process is not in any way manipulated for an extraneous purpose unconnected to the actual prosecution. The NPA accordingly submitted that this establishes the link required for rationality. The aforementioned must be seen in the light of the Court’s finding that the alleged conduct of Mr McCarthy as appears from the transcript of the recorded conversations, if proven, constitutes a serious breach of the law and prosecutorial policy.

In so far as the sixth ground of appeal is concerned, the NPA submitted that the Court erred in its findings in paragraphs 76 to 79 of the judgment, in which it failed to appreciate the true reason for the decision of Mr McCarthy and Mr Ngcuka to delay the service of the indictment.

It is a common cause that Mr McCarthy and Mr Ngcuka were bent upon ensuring that the indictment was served after the Polokwane conference, where Mr Mbeki and Mr Zuma would be vying for the Presidency of the ANC. Hofmeyr, inter alia, states in his affidavit:

‘Before the Polokwane conference, Ngcuka and others opposed to Zuma, debated amongst themselves whether or not Mbeki’s chances of retaining the ANC Presidency would be strengthened by delaying the prosecution. Correctly or incorrectly, they believed that Mbeki’s chances of defeating Zuma would be strengthened if the prosecution were to be delayed. McCarthy did as he was asked to do although it was clear that at times, he did not agree with Ngcuka’s instructions. Ultimately, McCarthy ensured that the prosecution was delayed. He did so for one reason only, to bolster Mbeki’s chances of successfully defeating Zuma’.

It is clear that Mr McCarthy and Mr Ngcuka believed that the service of the indictment shortly before the Polokwane conference would provoke a reaction and backlash from persons attending the conference who would consider that this was being done in order to besmirch Mr Zuma and to advantage Mr Mbeki. That would, so they believed, move delegates to rally around Mr Zuma.

That they may have miscalculated does not detract from the fact that Mr McCarthy persuaded Mr Mpshe to delay service of the indictment which he believed would disadvantage Mr Mbeki if the NPA did not hold back. It was against this background that Mr Mpshe decided that Mr Zuma’s continued prosecution would be untenable.

The NPA, as any other litigant, has the right to appeal the decision of any judicial proceedings. In this matter, the NPA believes it has reasonable prospects of succeeding the prosecution of its appeal.

Therefore, it is incorrect that his Excellency, the Honourable President of the Republic had at any stage faced charges of gangsterism as contended by the Honourable member. All charges of corruption were withdrawn against the Honourable President prior to being elected as President of the Republic.

Reply:

1. (a) (i) The Department of Justice and Constitutional Development spent R29,722 million on advertising during the 2015/16 financial year.

(2) The Office of the Chief Justice spent R1, 446 million on advertising during the 2015/16 financial year.

(ii) The entities reporting to the Ministry of Justice and Correctional Services spent the following during the 2015/16 financial year:

 (b) Legal Aid South Africa spent R4,322, 369 on advertising which included print, television and radio advertising; and The Special Investigating Unit (SIU) spent R888 449.19.

(1) (a) (i) The Department of Justice and Constitutional Development has budgeted R42, 065 million for advertising in the 2016/17 financial year.

(2) The Office of the Chief Justice has budgeted R1, 779 million for advertising

in the 2016/17 financial year.

(ii) The entities reporting to the Minister of Justice and Correctional Services

have budgeted the following for advertising during the 2016/17 financial year:

(b) Legal Aid South Africa: R3,949, 363; and

The SIU: R3, 000,000.00.

(a)(i) The Department of Correctional Services has spent a total of R6 938 622.13 (six million nine hundred and thirty eight thousand six hundred and twenty two rand thirteen cents) on advertising in the 2015-16 financial year.

(a)(ii) Not applicable

(b)(i) The department has budgeted a total amount of R8 053 437.56 (eight million, fifty three thousand four hundred and thirty seven rand fifty six cents) for advertising in the 2016-17 financial year. This will amongst others include job advertisements and tenders.

(b)(ii) Not applicable

Reply:

1. (a) (b) No

2. (a) No

(b) The Department of Home Affairs is responsible for the administration of the Public Funding of Represented Political Parties Act, 1997 (Act 103 of 1997)

1. No political party has approached the Department of Correctional Services for any form of funding for the financial years in question. (a) for any of the periods mentioned in (i), (ii), and (iii).

      (b) neither since 1 April 2016, in question.

    2. No funding has been provided to any political party in 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16 financial years respectively.

   (2)(b) None

Reply:

I wish to inform the Honourable Member that I have been informed that:-

    (a) Neither the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development nor the Office of the Chief Justice; nor

     (b) The National Prosecuting Authority, Legal Aid Board South Africa or the Special Investigating Unit, are running development programmes for (i) small businesses and (ii) co-operatives, because this is not the core function of the Departments and/or entities involved.

The Departments and entities involved, are supporting the programmes and initiatives such as the Central Supplier Database (CSD) at present being developed and implemented by the National Treasury, the Department of Trade and Industry as well as the Department of Small Business Development.

(a) Department of Correctional Services through the services of the Directorate Skills Development does not directly run development programmes.

(b) and (ii) small businesses and co-operatives focus is on the development of incarcerated offenders through various skills in the following categories:

- Technical Vocational Education and Training Programme e.g N-Courses & NCV Programmes.

- Occupational Skills Training Programmes, e.g. welding, woodwork, computer skills, entrepreneurship and electrical programmes.

(aa) The Directorate Skills Development provides the above skills development programmes to offenders and also as its mandate ensures that skilled offenders are empowered on entrepreneurial skills so that they can create employment opportunities through small business ventures upon release.

Since the Department does not have the capacity to provide the afore-mentioned entrepreneurial skills to offenders, the Department collaborates with external state agencies such as Small Enterprises Development Agency (SEDA), National Youth Development Agency (NYDA) and the National Skills Funds (NSF) for assistance.

(bb) No budget is specifically allocated for entrepreneurship programmes, hence the above initiative of collaboration with other external stakeholders.

(cc) There is no specific target set to create jobs as the mandate of Skills Development is mainly to provide offenders with needs - based programmes and interventions to facilitate their rehabilitation and personal development.

The Department had previously identified a need for partnering with the Small Enterprises Development Agency (Seda) which is the agency of the Department of Small Business Development in order to train and offer support through its business support officers to offenders participating in Skills Development programmes, Production Workshops and Agriculture and Maintenance programmes in order to ensure that they (i.e. offenders) are exposed to business opportunities and are able to start planning for their own small business enterprises to be pursued upon release.

In preparation for this initiative the Department consulted SEDA in this regard. Hence SEDA conducted an Entrepreneurship Training Workshop during October 2016 which resulted in a total of 16 officials from all regions trained as Entrepreneurs Ambassadors so as to can facilitate future SMME related programmes in the interest of offenders. Furthermore during the period September 2014 and March 2015 a total of 50 offenders in KZN were trained on the Empretec Entrepreneurship Training pilot training in DCS (22 offenders from New Castle Management Area and 28 from Ekuseni Youth Centre).

In light of the above, the Department of Small Business Development (DSBD) has agreed in principle to participate in the SMME awareness campaign and capacity building sessions particularly to those offenders who are due to be released as well as those who participate in Skills Development Programmes. Although a formal MoU between DCS and DSBD has not been finalised, the Department is planning to co-host a National Exhibition and an SMME Campaign for offenders in 2016/2017 financial year.

Reply:

The matter has just been received by the NPA during May 2016. The SIU investigation has uncovered evidence that points to the commission of criminal offences by the individuals named in the report. However, the matter must be referred to the police for further investigation and any decision whether or not to prosecute can only be made after such investigations are finalised.

Accordingly the response to the question is as follows:

   (a) Any decision regarding the prosecution or otherwise of the specified individuals can only be taken after the finalisation of the police investigations; and

   (b) Similarly any decision as to the arrest or otherwise in the matter can only be taken after police investigations have been finalised.

Reply:

(a) Yes, as at date of receipt of question (13 May 2016) the offender in question was already released on 16 April 2016.

(b) (i)(ii)(iii) Not applicable.

Reply:

The interviews for the vacant position at the Electoral Commission were conducted by a Panel chaired by the Chief Justice comprising of the representatives of the South African Human Rights Commission, Commission for Gender Equality and the Public Protector, and constituted in terms of section 6 of the Electoral Commission Act, on 17 February 2016.

   (a) The interviews were held at the Southern Sun, OR Tambo International Airport, Gauteng.

   (b) (i) Travelling costs: There were four candidates who were based outside of

  Gauteng and their travelling costs inclusive of air travel and shuttle amounted to R27 657.00.

(ii) (aa) Accommodation costs and (bb) catering costs: The four candidates who are referred to in (i) were the only persons who were provided with accommodation at the Southern Sun OR Tambo International Airport. The costs that were expended in relation to accommodation, conferencing and catering amounted to R32 497.70.

(iii) Remuneration of any persons: There were no costs associated with remuneration of any persons.

(iv) The other costs incurred relates to recording and transcription which

amounted to R16 484.80.

The total amount incurred for the interviews was R76 639.50.

Reply:

1. Yes, on 05 February 2016 a request was received from the municipality to reduce water supply. The municipality also requested the centre to likewise reduce the pressure to the centres and households.

It should be mentioned that from 15 December 2013 Umjindi Municipality started reducing the water pressure to the farm because of the water demands from the local community and the available water supply.

(1)(a) Period without Water	(1)(b) Duration
08 to 27 Feb 2016	20 Days
12 to 14 March 2016	03 Days
15 to 30 March 2016	16 Days
02 April 2016	1 Day
16 to 22 April 2016	07 Days
27 April to 10 May 2016	14 Days

(2)(a)(i) The Department has granted approval to the centre to procure its own water tank truck as well as JoJo tanks to supply water to the facilities and households.

Department of Correctional Services has requested the National Department of Public Works (NDPW) to investigate the possibility of boreholes on the farm and funds have been made available to implement a borehole water system

(2)(ii)(aa) Arrangements are in place between Department of Correctional Services and Umjindi Municipality with the assistance of Sappi to transport water to the centres using a tank truck.

(2)(ii)(bb) The water challenges of the province have been registered nationally due to the fact that the entire area is subjected to severe drought and the municipality reservoir is also empty

2(b) Procurement of the water tank truck will be through a Transversal Contract with National Treasury.

The borehole water system is dependent on the availability of under- ground water levels fed by rainfall, but National Department of Public Works has already started with the investigation process.

Reply:

The Honourable Member should note that the Police are the custodians of all dockets and have record of decisions taken by the courts on matters referred to the respective courts. Therefore, the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development, as well as the National Prosecuting Authority do not keep such statistics.

Reply:

The Honourable Member should note that the Police are the custodians of all dockets and have record of decisions taken by the courts on matters referred to the respective courts. Therefore, the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development, as well as the National Prosecuting Authority do not keep such statistics.

Reply:

The Honourable Member should note that the Police are the custodians of all dockets and have record of decisions taken by the courts on matters referred to the respective courts. Therefore, the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development, as well as the National Prosecuting Authority do not keep such statistics.

Reply:

I wish to inform the Honourable Member that the National Prosecuting Authority requests further particulars in relation to this matter in order to locate it within its system. Please provide the name of the specific police station where the docket was opened, the name of the suspect and the nature of the charges being investigated.

Reply:

(1) No, the mentioned offender was sentenced to 2 sentences of life incarceration on 20 March 2002 for multiple offences relating to murder, possession of firearms and ammunition as well as assault.

This implies that he completed 14 years of his sentence and his parole consideration is due after maximum credits were allocated to him as well as the granting of special remission of sentence.

His parole consideration documents (G326 parole profile report) have been prepared by the Case Management Committee but have not yet been submitted as a result of an outstanding Psychologist report.

(2) The Minister has not received the parole profile report of the offender in question and has not considered the offender for placement on parole.

(3)(a)(i) & (ii) No, appointments with a psychiatrist were cancelled or postponed.

(3)(b) The offender has been scheduled to be seen by a psychologist as from 9 May 2016. Once the comprehensive report has been prepared by the psychologist, the Case Management Committee will submit a recommendation to the Minister via the Parole Board.

Reply:

1. (a) The total amount spent on the Commission of Inquiry into Allegations of Fraud, Corruption, Impropriety or Irregularity in the Strategic Defence Procurement Packages as at 31 March 2016 is R137, 264, 521.

(b) The table below provides the breakdown of the expenditure since its establishment in 2011 to date:

2. (a) Total amount spent on evidence leaders, forensic auditor and research consultant is R93, 148, 779.

    (b) The tables below provide the breakdown of expenditure as follows:

    (i) Evidence leaders:

   (ii) Forensic Auditor:

(iii) Research Consultant:

Reply:

The mentioned person was eligible for parole on 16 June 2015 and was placed for parole supervision on 18 June 2015.

Reply:

a) (i) (ii) There is no shortage of food and stationery in the Leeuwkop Medium C Correctional Facility in Gauteng.

b) The Service Provider was not quality assured and therefore cannot provide training.

Reply:

The President issued, in a government gazette no.39935, two Proclamations (Number R.18 and R.20) on 15 April 2016 in respect of the affairs of the Department of Correctional Services. The details of the proclamations relate to procurement irregularities.

Reply:

(1)(a)(i) There were thirty three (33) reported cases of natural deaths

(1)(a)(ii) There were five (5) reported cases of unnatural deaths (known and unknown causes)

Information for (1)(b),(c)and (2) is reflected in the tables below:

(1)(b) Date of death	(1)(c) Reason of death	(2) Date reported to JICS –if not give reason
NATURAL DEATHS
2015.03.13	Respiratory Failure	2015.08.24
2015.04.09	Heart Problem	2016.02.23
2015.04.26	Respiratory Failure	2015.05.25
2015.05.11	Respiratory Failure	2015.05.17
2015.08.24	Nephrotic Syndrome	2015.08.27
2015.08.27	Broncho Pneumonia	2015.09.06.
2015.08.29	Acute Liver Failure	2015.08.30
2015.10.15	Respiratory Failure	2015.10.29
2015.11.20	Cardio Pulmonary Arrest	2015.12.13
2015.05.17.	Retro Viral Disease	2015.05.20
2015.05.26.	Plasma Blastic Lymphoma	2015.05.28
2015.06.08	Retro Viral Disease	2015.06.24
2015.06.11	Idiopathic Thrombo Cytopenia	2015.06.17
2015.06.11	Kaposi Sarcoma	2015.06.17
2015.06.10	Retro Viral Disease	2015.06.17
2016.01.29	Respiratory Failure	2016.01.29
2016.02.20	Opportunistic Infection /Diabetes	2016.03.07
2016.02.28	Electrolyte Imbalance	2016.02.28
2015.05.27	Epilepsy Hypertension Previous Cerebro vascular accident	2015.05.28
2015.11.10	Retro Viral Disease	2015.11.12
2015.11.13	Retro Viral Disease	2015.11.13
2015.12.08	Diabetes Hypertension Asthma	2015.02.09
2016.02.24	Hepatitis	2016.02.24
2015.09.09	Acute asthmatic attack	2015.09.09
2015.06.15	Retro Viral Disease	2015.06.22
2015.06.16	Retro Viral Disease	2015.06.18
2015.06.18	Retro Viral Disease	2015.06.26
2015.07.06	Meningitis	2015.07.10
2015.07.26	Hypertension	2015.07.31
2015.09.01	Retro Viral Disease	2015.09.03
2015.09.13	Retro Viral Disease	2015.09.16
2015.11.30	Sepsis renal failure	2015.12.01
2016.01.19	Jaundice	2016.01.26
UNNATURAL DEATHS
2015.08.26	Suicide: Medication overdose	2015.08.27
2015.11.08	Unnatural: Post mortem outstanding. Death register number 1619/15: Steve Biko Forensic Pathology Laboratory	2015.11.08
2015.11.12	Assault: Inmate on Inmate: Stabbed in the heart	2015.11.12
2015.11.19	Suicide: Hanging	2015.11.19
2015.12.12	Stab wound of the chest. Injury to the pulmonary artery. Blood in the pericardial sack around the heart. Massive haemothorax of the left chest cavity. Superficial incised wounds of the right flank and back	2015.12.12

(3) The JICS does not investigate all deaths reported to it, due to lack of capacity; it does however follow a process to confirm that deaths did occur and this is done via the Independent Correctional Centre Visitor.

Natural Deaths – when a natural death is reported the Independent Correctional Centre Visitor will fill in a record of confirmation to confirm that the death has taken place.

Unnatural Deaths - when an unnatural death is reported the Independent Correctional Centre Visitor will be required to conduct an enquiry on the death and depending on the severity of the case it will then be referred to the JICS investigating unit to investigate

The last enquiry conducted was at Kgoši Mampuru Local in November 2015 where it was alleged that the inmate committed suicide by hanging himself. The Independent Correctional Centre Visitor did the enquiry and found that indeed the inmate had committed suicide by using his shoes laces and a piece of bed sheet as a rope.

Reply:

Neither I nor my Deputy Ministers have met with any member, employee or close associate of the Gupta family and/or attended a meeting with the specified persons at the Gupta’s Saxonwold Estate in Johannesburg.

Reply:

1. No. I was neither approached by the Minister of Sports and Recreation nor volunteered to commission legal advice about possible legal consequences of travelling to Zurich, Switzerland for Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) related business.
2. To date, the Department only received a copy of an indictment against fourteen (14) accused persons. No South African is listed as an accused person. Twenty five (25) persons are referred to, in the indictment, as co-conspirators. The co-conspirators are referred to as #1 to #25. Their names are not revealed in the indictment. It is stated that their names are known to the Grand Jury. The following details of the alleged South African co-conspirators are provided in the indictment:

• #15 was a high-ranking official of the 2006 and 2010 South African World Cup Bid Committee and member of the local South African Organizing Committee; and
• #16 was also a high-ranking official of the 2006 and 2010 South African World Cup Bid Committee and member of the local South African Organizing Committee.

To date, the Department did not receive any further communication regarding the matter from the authorities of the United States of America.

The Department is not aware of any questions sent to any persons.

3. The Department did not contact the authorities of the United State of America. The indictment was forwarded to the Ministers of Sports and Recreation, International Relations and Cooperation, and Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation, as well as Directorate for Priority Crime Investigation for their information and consideration for the way forward.

Reply:

(a) The Department is in the process of amending the Formal Education Policy and Procedures.

(b) The relevant details will be communicated as soon as the policy is approved.

Reply:

1. No
2. No

Reply:

No, the matter was referred to the Magistrate Commission for further handling and investigation.

Reply:

(1)(a)(i) There were thirty three (33) reported cases of natural deaths

(1)(a)(ii) There were five (5) reported cases of unnatural deaths (known and unknown causes)

Information for (1)(b),(c)and (2) is reflected in the tables below:

(1)(b) Date of death	(1)(c) Reason of death	(2) Date reported to JICS –if not give reason
NATURAL DEATHS
2015.03.13	Respiratory Failure	2015.08.24
2015.04.09	Heart Problem	2016.02.23
2015.04.26	Respiratory Failure	2015.05.25
2015.05.11	Respiratory Failure	2015.05.17
2015.08.24	Nephrotic Syndrome	2015.08.27
2015.08.27	Broncho Pneumonia	2015.09.06.
2015.08.29	Acute Liver Failure	2015.08.30
2015.10.15	Respiratory Failure	2015.10.29
2015.11.20	Cardio Pulmonary Arrest	2015.12.13
2015.05.17.	Retro Viral Disease	2015.05.20
2015.05.26.	Plasma Blastic Lymphoma	2015.05.28
2015.06.08	Retro Viral Disease	2015.06.24
2015.06.11	Idiopathic Thrombo Cytopenia	2015.06.17
2015.06.11	Kaposi Sarcoma	2015.06.17
2015.06.10	Retro Viral Disease	2015.06.17
2016.01.29	Respiratory Failure	2016.01.29
2016.02.20	Opportunistic Infection /Diabetes	2016.03.07
2016.02.28	Electrolyte Imbalance	2016.02.28
2015.05.27	Epilepsy Hypertension Previous Cerebro vascular accident	2015.05.28
2015.11.10	Retro Viral Disease	2015.11.12
2015.11.13	Retro Viral Disease	2015.11.13
2015.12.08	Diabetes Hypertension Asthma	2015.02.09
2016.02.24	Hepatitis	2016.02.24
2015.09.09	Acute asthmatic attack	2015.09.09
2015.06.15	Retro Viral Disease	2015.06.22
2015.06.16	Retro Viral Disease	2015.06.18
2015.06.18	Retro Viral Disease	2015.06.26
2015.07.06	Meningitis	2015.07.10
2015.07.26	Hypertension	2015.07.31
2015.09.01	Retro Viral Disease	2015.09.03
2015.09.13	Retro Viral Disease	2015.09.16
2015.11.30	Sepsis renal failure	2015.12.01
2016.01.19	Jaundice	2016.01.26
UNNATURAL DEATHS
2015.08.26	Suicide: Medication overdose	2015.08.27
2015.11.08	Unnatural: Post mortem outstanding. Death register number 1619/15: Steve Biko Forensic Pathology Laboratory	2015.11.08
2015.11.12	Assault: Inmate on Inmate: Stabbed in the heart	2015.11.12
2015.11.19	Suicide: Hanging	2015.11.19
2015.12.12	Stab wound of the chest. Injury to the pulmonary artery. Blood in the pericardial sack around the heart. Massive haemothorax of the left chest cavity. Superficial incised wounds of the right flank and back	2015.12.12

(3) The JICS does not investigate all deaths reported to it, due to lack of capacity; it does however follow a process to confirm that deaths did occur and this is done via the Independent Correctional Centre Visitor.

Natural Deaths – when a natural death is reported the Independent Correctional Centre Visitor will fill in a record of confirmation to confirm that the death has taken place.

Unnatural Deaths - when an unnatural death is reported the Independent Correctional Centre Visitor will be required to conduct an enquiry on the death and depending on the severity of the case it will then be referred to the JICS investigating unit to investigate

The last enquiry conducted was at Kgoši Mampuru Local in November 2015 where it was alleged that the inmate committed suicide by hanging himself. The Independent Correctional Centre Visitor did the enquiry and found that indeed the inmate had committed suicide by using his shoes laces and a piece of bed sheet as a rope.

Reply:

1. Yes, the mentioned Offender`s profile report was presented before the National Council for Correctional Services (NCCS). After having considered the profile of the offender, the NCCS resolved not to recommend the offender`s placement on parole, and to reconsider the matter within twelve (12) months. It was recommended that the offender should be subjected to individual psychotherapy to further address his anger and aggressive behaviour.

(2) No, the offender did not participate in Victim Offender Dialogue as the means to locate his victims were unsuccessful..

(3)(a) in an effort to trace the victims it was discovered that victims relocated and cold not be traced.

(3)(b) His address was confirmed to be positive.

Reply:

No, it is important however to note that there is difference between consideration for parole and the Special Dispensation (which was adopted on 21 November 2007) for individuals who have committed offences they believe were in pursuit of a political objective.

a) The mentioned offender was placed on parole under certain conditions as provided for in section 52 of the Correctional Services Act 111 of 1998 (the Act) as amended, after his placement was approved by the Minister in terms of section 78 (1) of the Act.

b) The offender in question is currently a beneficiary of day parole. On 01 December 2015, in line with section 78 (1) of the Act, the Minister approved that the offender be placed on day parole for six (6) months and thereafter on full parole under certain conditions.

According to section 73(5) (b) of the Act, a sentenced offender be placed on day parole or parole subject to that offender accepting the conditions for placement.

Section 78 (1) of the Act provides that all offenders serving lifer sentence that are placed on day parole or parole, are released conditionally as contemplated in section 52 of the Act.

The offender could previously not be placed on day parole as he did not accept placement conditions.

Reply:

1. Yes, gang related incidents were experienced during the last six (6) months at Correctional Centres A, B and C at Boksburg Management Area. Prevalent gangs involved in gang incidents include the RAF 3, Big 5, 26 and 28 Gangs.

(2)(a)(i) One (1) inmate died in November 2015 in Boksburg Medium A following an assault of an “inmate on inmate” with a sharpened object.

1. (a)(ii) – Yes, see table below.

(2)(b)(i) No officials died due to the violence.

(2)(b)(ii) – No officials were injured due to the violence.

(2) date of incident and centre	(2) Description	Number of inmates involved	2(a)(ii) number of inmates injured	(1) gangs involved
2015.10.10 Centre A	Inmate assaulted two (2) other inmates. Both victims sustained laceration injuries.	3	2	26 and 28 gang
2015.10.13 Centre A	Two (2) inmates assaulted one (1) inmate by hitting him with padlocks on his head.	3	1	26 and 28 gang
2015.10.15 Centre A	Two (2) inmates were stabbed by two (2) inmates with sharpened objects.	4	2	26 gang
2015.11.09 Centre C	Five (5) inmates assaulted one (1) inmate.	6	1	26 gang
2015.11.12 Centre A	Three (3) inmates fought amongst themselves with self-made knives.	3	3	RAF 3
2015.11.14 Centre B	Four (4) inmates stabbed two (2) inmates.	6	2	26 and 28 gang
2015.11.16 Centre A	Two (2) inmates assaulted one (1) inmate with a sharpened object and one (1) of the perpetrators was also injured.	3	2	28 gang and Big 5
2015.11.16 Centre B	Three (3) inmates assaulted one (1) inmate with a sharpen objet.	4	1	28 and 26 gang
2015.12.25 Centre C	Three (3) inmates assaulted each other	3	3	26 and 28 gang
2016.02.18 Centre A	Two (2) inmates stabbed one (1) inmate.	3	1	RAF 4 and Big 5
2016.02.29 Centre C	Ten (10) inmates assaulted each other.	10	10	and 28 gang

(3)(a) There is ongoing gang profiling in order to ensure improved management of gang dynamics in the correctional centre. The awareness of officials is raised on a regular basis to ensure constant vigilance and emphasis is placed on the effective management of offender complaints and requests. The utilisation of the gang management tools – especially the gang management checklist for utilisation at correctional centre level – is encouraged.

(3)(b) All inmates are made aware of the negative consequences of gangs in a correctional setting as part of the induction process and through ongoing engagement at unit level. As a matter of standard procedure all acts of violence (including those that arise due to gang activities) are investigated internally and this results in the guilty parties having their privileges reviewed. Offenders who pose a risk to the safety of other inmates are placed in single cells for closer monitoring.

It is also normal procedure that where there are injuries the cases of attempted assault, assault, assault with intent to inflict grievous bodily harm and attempted murder or murder are reported to the South African Police Service (SAPS) for investigation and pursuit of criminal charges. In many instances, however, most victims refuse to press criminal charges. Offenders who are found guilty of criminal offences will have their sentences prolonged or parole and release dates reviewed accordingly.

The Department is also working hard at ensuring that gang activities in correctional centres are dealt with in terms of the Prevention of Organised Crime Act (where possible and in liaison with the SAPS) as has been the case in regions like the Western Cape. The Department will also explore how the provisions of the Dangerous Weapons Act 15 of 2013 can be applied to gangs in correctional centres.