Questions and Replies

Reply:

1. (i) and (ii) The Department of Justice and Constitutional Development (DoJ&CD) including the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA), procures within the current framework in terms of the Preferential Procurement Regulations (PPR). The PPR was developed to support BBBEE and government specific goals.

94% of the departmental procurement supports government initiatives of which approximately 31% (R139 million) relates to SMMEs.

The department is awaiting the approval of the revised PPR that will provide for full implementation of the commitments made in the recent State of the Nation Addresses’ delivered.

 

The Office of the Chief Justice is submitting information in terms of the Broad Based Black Economic Empowerment scoring points system as prescribed by the Preferential Procurement Policy Framework Act, 5 of 2000. Information is submitted as follows:

Total amount spent on procurement from 1 April 2015 to 22 February 2016 by the Office of the Chief Justice amounts to R38 647 064.18. Of this amount R29 173 393.99 was spent on Black Economic Empowerment procurement (all Black Economic Empowerment levels). Therefore the Office of the Chief Justice spent 75.49% on Black Economic Empowerment procurement.

(b)(i) The Special Investigating Unit has indicated that the percentage of total procurement spend on SMME is sixty (60%) percent.

(ii) The SIU further indicated that no procurement was made from or in support of co-operatives and rural enterprises.

1. (i) Legal Aid South Africa issued instructions to 11,831 judicare practitioners from 1 April 2015 to 31st January 2016 to the value of R96 million. These are all small law firms.

A total amount of R1.35 million, covering 1 April 2015 to 31st December 2015, was paid to five (5) law firms that are all based in rural areas and have Agency Agreements with Legal Aid SA.

An amount of R95,7 million constituting other procurements of services and goods by different suppliers were paid out for the period 01 April 2015 to 31st January 2016. Legal Aid SA awaits National Treasury’s comprehensive review of the existing Supply Chain Management legislative framework in respect of various specific goals, i.e., Small, Medium and Micro-sized Enterprises (SMMEs), co-operatives, as well as township and rural enterprises to classify procurements services going forward.

(a) (i) The Department of Correctional Services has not set aside 30% of its procurement for purchasing from SMMEs, co-operatives as well as

township and rural enterprises as this is not yet supported by procurement legal framework.

Currently contracts are awarded in accordance with the Preferential Procurement Policy Framework Act, 2000 and its Regulations, 2011 to the bidder scoring the highest points.

The information regarding the contracts awarded with values above R30 000.00 from 1 April 2015 to 19 February 2016 is as follows:

BEE Level	Total Contracts	Total Current Contract Value	Percentage
Level 1	470	R 144 136 872.30	17.67%
Level 2	110	R 426 205 448.05	52.21%
Level 3	496	R 109 626 423.40	13.43%
Level 4	149	R 94 095 598.66	11.53%
Level 5	17	R 3 065 779.70	0.37%
Level 6	16	R 4 504 798.52	0.55%
Level 7	3	R 265 269.30	0.03%
Level 8	2	R 381 480.00	0.04%
Non-compliant contributor	203	R 34 042 967.57	4.17%
Total	1466	R 816 324 637.50

National Treasury’s Summary Report: Contract(s) Awarded does not make provision for distinguishing of contracts awarded to Small, Medium and Micro-sized Enterprises, co-operatives as well as township and rural enterprises.

(ii) As above

1. Not applicable

 

Reply:

I wish to inform the Honourable Member that I have considered the South African Law Reform Commission Project 107 Report on Sexual Offences (Adult Prostitution). It will be released on a date to be announced shortly.

Reply:

Firstly, I wish to inform the Honourable Member that in terms of section 181 (5) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, the State Institutions supporting Constitutional Democracy, including the South African Human Rights Commission, 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.

Therefore, the South African Human Rights Commission does not report to the Ministry of Justice and Correctional Services, but directly to Parliament.

However, because of the well-established working relationship between the South African Human Rights Commission and the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development, the South African Human Rights Commission has reported as follows regarding the questions raised by the Honourable Member:

Kindly find attached hereto, a consolidated compilation of data, sourced from the South African Human Rights Commission’s (the Commission) nine provincial offices in response to the Parliamentary Question:

(a) List of complaints laid altogether and against the Government, government departments and any government body from 1 January 2015 up to and including 31 January 2016;

(b) An indication of which of the above matters were finalised, rejected, referred or pending (in terms of the Commission’s Complaints Handling Procedures); and

(c) An indication of the different categories of complaints against the Government.

Due to the large volume of information sought, the data appears in its raw format. However, the SA Human Rights Commission has indicated that should a consolidated report of statistics and the generation of graphs be necessary, the Commission would require additional time in that regard.

Such a consolidated Report has been requested and will be submitted once received.

 

Reply:

1.1 The Protected Disclosures Act, 2000 (“the Act”), aims to protect employees from being subjected to occupational detriment on account of having made protected disclosures. The Act also establishes procedures in terms of which employees may disclose information regarding workplace improprieties. The Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill, 2015 (“the Bill”), which was introduced into Parliament on 8 December 2015 aims, among others, to extend the ambit of the Act beyond the traditional employer and employee relationship and to grant an employee who makes a protected disclosure immunity from criminal and civil liability.

1.2 The proposed amendment of section 1 of the Act aims to bring about an extension of the ambit of the Act. The ambit of the Act is determined in terms of the definition of “employee” which essentially restricts the application of the Act to the traditional employer and employee relationship. Independent contractors are expressly excluded from the provisions of the Act. Since there is a notable increase in the use of part-time and temporary workers coupled with the trend of outsourcing, the restricted definition of “employee” excludes a growing number of people from the ambit of the Act. The aforementioned category includes independent contractors, persons employed by temporary employment services and former employees.

1.3 The proposed new sections 3A and 3B aim to introduce joint liability and a duty to inform employees who make disclosures whether such disclosures will be investigated or not. As far as joint liability is concerned the introduction of the definition of “worker” gives rise to the situation that a worker who is rendering services to a client will have two ‘employers’. This will mean that if a protected disclosure is made by a worker who is employed by an agency to either the agency or to the institution where he or she works and the entity to which the disclosure has been made meets the disclosure with an occupational detriment, the worker will be entitled to the remedies provided in terms of the Act.

1.4 A number of employees who make protected disclosures experience difficulties where they, in the absence of an obligation to give feedback or to be notified, are not notified of a decision not to investigate the disclosure or of a decision to refer the matter to another body to investigate, or the outcome of an investigation. The proposed new section 3B aims to give effect to the aforementioned.

1.5.1 The restrictive nature of the remedies currently provided for in terms of section 4 will also, in view of the proposed extension of the ambit of the Act, receive attention. The section 4 remedies, read with the Labour Relations Act, 1995 (Act No. 66 of 1995), are limited to “employees” in the strict sense and do not cater for independent contractors, consultants and agents. The proposed amendment of section 4 therefore aims to ensure that workers (independent contractors, consultants and agents) will also be enabled to exercise certain remedies if they are subjected to occupational detriment as a result of having made protected disclosures.

1.5.2 The proposed new section 4(1B), for example, will make it clear that a court may order an employer to pay compensation or actual damages to an employee or worker and further provides that a court may issue an order directing an employer to take steps to remedy the occupational detriment.

1.6 Clause 10 of the Bill aims to introduce a new section 9A in the Act which deals with the exclusion of civil and criminal liability. Since the Act does not protect persons from criminal or civil liability, it is argued that the introduction of such protection would help achieve one of the aims of the Act, namely, to facilitate and encourage disclosures. It should be noted that the new provision does not introduce blanket immunity. The need to protect certain information either in the national interest of the country or in the interest of the livelihood of an employer militates against granting blanket immunity from liability for disclosures relating to all improprieties provided for in the Act. Exposing an employer to such a risk would only be justified where the content of the disclosure is sufficiently serious, namely, where the disclosure relates to the commission of an offence. Immunity from civil and criminal liability will, in terms of the proposed new section 9A, not be automatic but will be granted subject to the discretion of the court in which an action is brought.

In recognition of Government’s initiatives to protect whistle blowers, the Office of the Chief Justice (OCJ) has adopted a Whistleblowing Policy (the Policy) that complies with the provisions of the Protected Disclosures Act, 2000 (Act No. 26 of 2000).

This Policy has been widely distributed to all officials in the OCJ and is also available on the departmental intranet. It is aimed at, amongst others, encouraging employees to report and blow the whistle on fraud and corruption by following the established channels; and also enjoins OCJ officials with the responsibility to disclose any matters that are related to fraud and corruption in the workplace. Additionally, the Policy provides that the OCJ is committed to take all necessary steps to ensure that OCJ employees who disclosed fraud and corruption allegations are protected from any reprisals or fear of suffering any occupational related detriment as a result of such disclosure.

OCJ employees may report anonymously any allegation of fraud and corruption to any member of the management of the OCJ, the Fraud Auditing Unit, the Audit and Risk Committee or to the National Anti-Corruption Hotline 0800 701 701 managed by the Public Service Commission. All reported fraud and corruption cases are recorded in the OCJ Fraud Register which is monitored by the Audit and Risk Committee and may, following an investigation, be escalated either to the OCJ’s corporate services branch, the South African Police Services or other relevant law enforcement agencies.

                                                                                                                             

Reply:

Firstly, I wish to inform the Honourable Member that in terms of section 181 (5) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, the State Institutions supporting Constitutional Democracy, including the South African Human Rights Commission, 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.

Therefore, the South African Human Rights Commission does not report to the Ministry of Justice and Correctional Services, but directly to Parliament.

However, because of the well-established working relationship between the South African Human Rights Commission and the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development, the South African Human Rights Commission has reported as follows regarding the questions raised by the Honourable Member:

Kindly find attached hereto, a consolidated compilation of data, sourced from the South African Human Rights Commission’s (the Commission) nine provincial offices in response to the Parliamentary Question:

(a) Complaints laid against the President in the period from 1 January 2015 up to and including 31 January 2016;

(b) An indication of which of the above matters were finalised, rejected, referred or pending (in terms of the Commission’s Complaints Handling Procedures; and

(c) An indication of the different categories of complaints against the Government.

Due to the large volume of information sought, the data appears in its raw format. However, the SA Human Rights Commission has indicated that should a consolidated report of statistics and the generation of graphs be necessary, the Commission would require additional time in that regard.

Such a consolidated Report has been requested and will be submitted once received.

 

Reply:

1.1 The Protected Disclosures Act, 2000 (“the Act”), aims to protect employees from being subjected to occupational detriment on account of having made protected disclosures. The Act also establishes procedures in terms of which employees may disclose information regarding workplace improprieties. The Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill, 2015 (“the Bill”), which was introduced into Parliament on 8 December 2015 aims, among others, to extend the ambit of the Act beyond the traditional employer and employee relationship and to grant an employee who makes a protected disclosure immunity from criminal and civil liability.

1.2 The proposed amendment of section 1 of the Act aims to bring about an extension of the ambit of the Act. The ambit of the Act is determined in terms of the definition of “employee” which essentially restricts the application of the Act to the traditional employer and employee relationship. Independent contractors are expressly excluded from the provisions of the Act. Since there is a notable increase in the use of part-time and temporary workers coupled with the trend of outsourcing, the restricted definition of “employee” excludes a growing number of people from the ambit of the Act. The aforementioned category includes independent contractors, persons employed by temporary employment services and former employees.

1.3 The proposed new sections 3A and 3B aim to introduce joint liability and a duty to inform employees who make disclosures whether such disclosures will be investigated or not. As far as joint liability is concerned the introduction of the definition of “worker” gives rise to the situation that a worker who is rendering services to a client will have two ‘employers’. This will mean that if a protected disclosure is made by a worker who is employed by an agency to either the agency or to the institution where he or she works and the entity to which the disclosure has been made meets the disclosure with an occupational detriment, the worker will be entitled to the remedies provided in terms of the Act.

1.4 A number of employees who make protected disclosures experience difficulties where they, in the absence of an obligation to give feedback or to be notified, are not notified of a decision not to investigate the disclosure or of a decision to refer the matter to another body to investigate, or the outcome of an investigation. The proposed new section 3B aims to give effect to the aforementioned.

1.5.1 The restrictive nature of the remedies currently provided for in terms of section 4 will also, in view of the proposed extension of the ambit of the Act, receive attention. The section 4 remedies, read with the Labour Relations Act, 1995 (Act No. 66 of 1995), are limited to “employees” in the strict sense and do not cater for independent contractors, consultants and agents. The proposed amendment of section 4 therefore aims to ensure that workers (independent contractors, consultants and agents) will also be enabled to exercise certain remedies if they are subjected to occupational detriment as a result of having made protected disclosures.

1.5.2 The proposed new section 4(1B), for example, will make it clear that a court may order an employer to pay compensation or actual damages to an employee or worker and further provides that a court may issue an order directing an employer to take steps to remedy the occupational detriment.

1.6 Clause 10 of the Bill aims to introduce a new section 9A in the Act which deals with the exclusion of civil and criminal liability. Since the Act does not protect persons from criminal or civil liability, it is argued that the introduction of such protection would help achieve one of the aims of the Act, namely, to facilitate and encourage disclosures. It should be noted that the new provision does not introduce blanket immunity. The need to protect certain information either in the national interest of the country or in the interest of the livelihood of an employer militates against granting blanket immunity from liability for disclosures relating to all improprieties provided for in the Act. Exposing an employer to such a risk would only be justified where the content of the disclosure is sufficiently serious, namely, where the disclosure relates to the commission of an offence. Immunity from civil and criminal liability will, in terms of the proposed new section 9A, not be automatic but will be granted subject to the discretion of the court in which an action is brought.

The Department of Correctional Services (DCS) has ensured that officials are informed of the protected ways of reporting corruption and fraud through workshops and displayed posters. The DCS Whistle-blowing Policy which is informed by the Protected Disclosure Act provides the whistle-blowers of the process to be followed when reporting, for example, the relevant telephone numbers are provided where one can report, and also one is at liberty to remain anonymous when reporting if she/he fears victimization.

A Departmental Investigation Unit (DIU) was established in terms of Section 95A of the Correctional Services Act, Act 111 of 1998, as amended by Act 25 of 2008.

                                                                                                                             

Reply:

The Department of Justice and Constitutional Development has placed advertisements in The New Age Newspaper through the Government Communication and Information Systems (GCIS) (a) 2012/13 and (c) 2014/15.

(b) No advertisement was placed in 2013/14.

(i) 6 times.

(ii) Total amount of R1 409 452.27 which consists of (a) for 2012/13: R526 906.78; (b) for 2013/14: Nil; and (c) for 2014/15, R882 545.49. Media buying has been centralized at the GCIS to take advantage of bulk buying in terms of cost containment measures.

The National Prosecuting Authority indicated that the NPA placed a recruitment advertisement in the New Age in (b) 2013/14, (i) once (1 time); and (ii) for the amount of R18 400.

The Special Investigating Unit confirmed that the SIU has not placed advertisements in the New Age Newspaper for the financial years mentioned.

Reply:

a) (i) and (ii) The Department of Justice and Constitutional Development has indicated that the Department is submitting information in terms of the Broad Based Black Economic Empowerment (BBBEE) balanced scorecard as prescribed by the Preferential Procurement Policy Framework Act, 5 of 2000. For the period 1 April 2015 to 31 January 2016, 86.78% of the Departmental procurement spending was directed to contributor level 1-3.

B-BBEE Level of Contributor	No. of contracts	Total value	Percentage (%)
1	327	40 008 403.52	12.69%
2	215	178 607 300.06	56.67%
3	388	54 912 409.49	17.42%

Furthermore, Government officials can only act within the prescribed regulatory framework and the Department therefore awaits National Treasury comprehensive review of the existing Supply Chain Management legislative framework in respect of various specific goals, i.e., Small, Medium and Micro-sized Enterprises (SMMEs), co-operatives, as well as township and rural enterprises.

The National Prosecuting Authority has indicated that the total spent on contracts with Small Medium and Micro-Enterprises, is R77,5 million out of R94,1 million total spend, i.e., 82.35%.

(b)(i) The Special Investigating Unit has indicated that the percentage of total procurement spend on SMME is sixty (60%) percent.

(ii) The SIU further indicated that no procurement was made from or in support of co-operatives and rural enterprises.

Reply:

1. I wish to inform the Honourable member that I have been informed that the Master relies on the details submitted at the time funds are paid into the Guardians Fund. The Master ensures that all available details at the time are recorded on the Guardians Fund System. These details are therefore used to track the beneficiaries of the Fund.
2. (a) and (b) Yes. It is the Master’s experience that the vast majority of beneficiaries are aware of the funds held for them, and most have been receiving regular payments during their minority. However, there are beneficiaries who are not aware of their dues. The funds so due are termed unclaimed moneys. The Master deals with the advertising of unclaimed moneys of beneficiaries in the manner prescribed in terms of Section 91 of the Administration of Deceased Estates Act in the Government Gazette. In addition to the advertisement of unclaimed moneys, a list of such unclaimed moneys is published on the Departmental website under the Masters’ Branch. The Master’s Office has noticed 550 to 600 monthly visits to the advertised unclaimed moneys on the web page. In addition, during Izimbizo the communities are informed on how to claim monies from the Guardian’s Fund. Radio is also used widely to educate.
3. (a) and (b) No. The tracing of Guardians Fund beneficiaries, has been an area of serious exploitation in the past. Statutory intervention was made through the provisions of Section 51(1)(f) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2008 (Act No 68 of 2008) which deals with some of the challenges experienced. It is the Department’s view that a tracing agent may not charge commission for work relating to a claim against the Guardian’s Fund.

Reply:

I wish to inform the Hon Member that the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development, has 64 LP10 vacant posts that cannot be filled.

(a) 64.

(b) Specialist Production posts on LP 10-level, namely Deputy Chief State Law Advisers on Occupation Specific Dispensation-level.

(c) The LP 10 posts have been vacant since 24 January 2013 when the Department of Public Service and Administration communicated their embargo decision.

Department of Correctional Services

1. Total = 85 vacant positions

1. and (C) Please see table below.

(b) POST DESIGNATION	VACANT DATE	(c) PERIOD VACANT	REGION
COMMISSIONER: CORRECTIONAL SERVICES CH DEPUTY=(C)	20110110	5 YEARS 1 MONTH	HEAD OFFICE
CB4 REINTEGRATION MANAGER	20150901	5 MONTHS	GAUTENG
SAO:EMPLOYEE RELATIONS	20150601	8 MONTHS	GAUTENG
SAO:EMPLOYEE ASSISTANT PRACTITIONER	20141031	1 YEAR 3 MONTHS	GAUTENG
PNB1 CLINICAL NURSE PRACTITIONER GR 1 PRIM H CARE	20151001	4 MONTHS	GAUTENG
PROVISIONING ADMINISTRATION OFFICER (PC)	20150901	5 MONTHS	GAUTENG
CB5 CENTRE COORDINATOR MEDIUM	20150630	7 MONTHS	GAUTENG
ARTISAN FOREMAN GRADE A	20150831	5 MONTHS	GAUTENG
ARTISAN FOREMAN GRADE A	20150531	8 MONTHS	GAUTENG
EDUCATIONIST M4 (DCS)	20150630	7 MONTHS	GAUTENG
PSYCHOLOGIST GRADE 1	20140101	2 YEARS 1 MONTH	GAUTENG
AO:PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION	20150617	7 MONTHS	GAUTENG
AO:NETWORK CONTROLLERS(AC)(AC)	20150630	7 MONTHS	GAUTENG
CB4 SECURITY MANAGER	20150723	6 MONTHS	GAUTENG
AO:LOGISTICS ADMINISTRATION	20150731	6 MONTHS	GAUTENG
AO:LOGISTICS ADMINISTRATION	20150901	5 MONTHS	GAUTENG
SAO:SUPERVISOR MANAGEMENT ACCOUNTING	20150601	8 MONTHS	GAUTENG
CB4 SECURITY MANAGER	20150921	4 MONTHS	GAUTENG
CB6 CENTRE COORDINATOR LARGE	20150901	5 MONTHS	GAUTENG
CB5 CENTRE COORDINATOR MEDIUM	20150901	5 MONTHS	GAUTENG
PNA2 PROFESSIONAL NURSE GRADE 1 (GENERAL NURSING)	20150601	8 MONTHS	GAUTENG
CB4 SECURITY MANAGER	20150531	8 MONTHS	GAUTENG
PNB2 CLINICAL NURSE PRACTITIONER GR 2 PRIM H CARE	20151001	4 MONTHS	GAUTENG
PNB1 CLINICAL NURSE PRACTITIONER GR 1 PRIM H CARE	20151001	4 MONTHS	GAUTENG
ASD:MANAGER HUMAN RESOURCE ADMINISTRATION(AC)	20150601	8 MONTHS	GAUTENG
SAO:INVESTIGATIONS	20150301	11 MONTHS	GAUTENG
MR5 LEGAL ADMINISTRATION OFFICER GRADE 5	20140701	1 YEAR 7 MONTHS	GAUTENG
ASD:PROGRAM COORDINATION & DEVELOPMENT	20150731	6 MONTHS	GAUTENG
MANAGER PHARMACEUTICAL SERVICES ASSISTANT	20150301	11 MONTHS	GAUTENG
PSYCHOLOGIST GRADE 1	20150630	7 MONTHS	GAUTENG
PNB1 CLINICAL NURSE PRACTITIONER GR 1 PRIM H CARE	20150901	5 MONTHS	GAUTENG
CB5 CENTRE COORDINATOR MEDIUM	20150901	5 MONTHS	GAUTENG
CB4 SECURITY MANAGER	20150531	8 MONTHS	GAUTENG
SAO:PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION(AC:CORPOR SERV)	20151001	4 MONTHS	GAUTENG
AO:CAREER MANAGEMENT (FACILITATOR)	20150801	6 MONTHS	GAUTENG
AO:TRANSPORT CONTROL(KROONSTAD COLLEGE) /HO	20150701	7 MONTHS	GAUTENG
CB4 REINTEGRATION MANAGER	20150601	8 MONTHS	GAUTENG
PSYCHOLOGIST GRADE 1	20150701	7 MONTHS	GAUTENG
AO:PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION	20151001	4 MONTHS	GAUTENG
SAO:MESS(CATERERS)	20150701	7 MONTHS	GAUTENG
TYPIST GRADE II PRINCIPAL	20151001	4 MONTHS	GAUTENG
SAO:LOGISTIC ADMINISTRATION	20150731	6 MONTHS	GAUTENG
ARTISAN PRODUCTION GRADE A	20150701	7 MONTHS	GAUTENG
CB5 CENTRE COORDINATOR MEDIUM	20151001	4 MONTHS	GAUTENG
SW A4 SOCIAL WORKER GRADE 1	20150601	8 MONTHS	GAUTENG
PNB1 CLINICAL NURSE PRACTITIONER GR 1 PRIM H CARE	20150601	8 MONTHS	GAUTENG
PNB1 CLINICAL NURSE PRACTITIONER GR 1 PRIM H CARE	20150930	4 MONTHS	GAUTENG
CB1 1 SECURITY OFFICER GRADE 3	20150301	11 MONTHS	GAUTENG
CB1 1 SECURITY OFFICER GRADE 3	20150301	11 MONTHS	GAUTENG
CB1 1 SECURITY OFFICER GRADE 3	20150301	11 MONTHS	GAUTENG
CB1 1 SECURITY OFFICER GRADE 3	20150301	11 MONTHS	GAUTENG
AO:PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION	20141031	1 YEAR 3 MONTHS	GAUTENG
AO:PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION	20141001	1 YEAR 4 MONTHS	GAUTENG
SAO:EMPLOYEE ASSISTANT PRACTITIONER	20150930	4 MONTHS	GAUTENG
AO:RECRUITMENT & PLACEMENT(MA)	20141001	1 YEAR 4 MONTHS	GAUTENG
NCB1 3 PAROLE BOARD CLERK GRADE 1	20110401	4 YEARS 10 MONTHS	GAUTENG
CB5 CENTRE COORDINATOR MEDIUM	20150912	5 MONTHS	GAUTENG
SW A8 SOCIAL WORK SUPERVISOR GRADE 1	20150901	5 MONTHS	GAUTENG
PNA2 PROFESSIONAL NURSE GRADE 1 (GENERAL NURSING)	20150831	5 MONTHS	GAUTENG
EDUCATIONIST M3 (DCS)	20150901	5 MONTHS	GAUTENG
CB4 SECURITY MANAGER	20150601	8 MONTHS	GAUTENG
PNB1 CLINICAL NURSE PRACTITIONER GR 1 PRIM H CARE	20150301	11 MONTHS	GAUTENG
CB4 SECURITY MANAGER	20120131	4 YEARS	GAUTENG
CB4 SECURITY MANAGER	20101001	5 YEARS 4 MOTNHS	GAUTENG
CB4 SECURITY MANAGER	20150601	8 MONTHS	GAUTENG
CB4 SECURITY MANAGER	20150202	1 YEAR	GAUTENG
ARTISAN FOREMAN GRADE A	20150831	5 MONTHS	GAUTENG
AO:TRANSIT & WAREHOUSE	20150501	8 MONTHS	GAUTENG
AO:TRANSIT & WAREHOUSE	20150601	8 MONTHS	GAUTENG
AO:LOGISTICS ADMINISTRATION	20150701	7 MONTHS	GAUTENG
AO:PROCUREMENT	20150601	8 MONTHS	GAUTENG
AO:VOUCHER CONTROL	20150701	7 MONTHS	GAUTENG
ARTISAN CHIEF GRADE A	20110401	4 YEARS 10 MONTHS	GAUTENG
PHARMACY SUPERVISOR GRADE 1	20150531	8 MONTHS	GAUTENG
NCB1 2 CORRECTIONAL POLICY ADMINISTRATOR GRADE 2	20150801	6 MONTHS	GAUTENG
ARTISAN CHIEF GRADE A	20150101	1 YEAR 1 MONTH	GAUTENG
SW A6 SOCIAL WORKER GRADE 3	20150831	5 MONTHS	GAUTENG
SECTION HEAD (EDUCATIONIST DCS)	20150901	5 MONTHS	GAUTENG
CB4 SECURITY MANAGER	20150724	6 MONTHS	GAUTENG
AO:CAREER MANAGEMENT (FACILITATOR)	20150601	8 MONTHS	GAUTENG
ASD:MANAGER SPECIAL PROGRAMMES	20150601	8 MONTHS	GAUTENG
AO:TRANSIT & WAREHOUSE	20150630	7 MONTHS	GAUTENG
PROVISIONING ADMINISTRATION OFFICER (PC)	20150601	8 MONTHS	GAUTENG
AO:VOUCHER CONTROL	20150729	6 MONTHS	GAUTENG
CB4 SECURITY MANAGER	20150630	7 MONTHS	GAUTENG

A total of 85 posts are frozen.

NB: All these posts are in Gauteng Region, except that one of CDC: Central services as it is located in Head Office

Reply:

(1) Yes

(1)(a) 12 years imprisonment

(1)(b) 30 December 2015

(1)(c) The offender in question is classified as a Maximum offender

(2)(a) No

(2)(b) No

(2)(b)(i) As directed by the medical practitioner, offender Dalindyebo was admitted in a private hospital on 08th January until 14th January 2016 and again on 15th January 2016 (to date) and therefore receives food provided in the hospital.

(2)(b)(ii) Offender Dalindyebo was accommodated in a single cell in line with the Correctional Services Act, Act 111 of 1998, as amended.

(2)(b)(aa) An application to be incarcerated in a single cell was considered and approved in terms of section 7(2)(e) of the Correctional Services Act, Act 111 of 1998, as amended.

(2)(b)(bb) The period the offender was incarcerated at the correctional facility he received the prescribed inmate diet.

Reply:

No.

I have been informed that (i) the Office of the Chief Justice is not in a position to provide a response, as the Court has done its part by delivering the judgment and to date, there has not been any application for contempt of the relevant court order; and (ii), the Director of Public Prosecutions, Gauteng Local Division, has informed me that this matter was heard in the civil court. No criminal case has been opened.

Therefore, the question should be redirected to the Minister of Safety and Security and/or the Minister of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs.

Reply:

1. Yes, the Correctional Supervision and Parole Board considered the mentioned offender and his profile report was received by Head Office during September 2015 and submitted it to the National Council for Correctional Services (NCCS). As soon as the recommendation of the NCCS is available, it will be submitted to the Minister for consideration.

(2)(a) & (b) See (1) above.

(3)(a)&(b) The offender was not denied to be considered for possible parole placement by the (a) Minister and (b) Correctional Supervision and Parole Board.

(3)(i) & (ii) Parole applications are submitted in accordance with and in compliance to section 42(2) (d) of the Correctional Services Act, Act 111 of 1998, as amended. Amongst others, during the said period the offender did not participate in Victim Offender Dialogue and the Department in collaboration with the offender was in the process of tracing his victims. Furthermore, his support system was also not positively confirmed.

Reply:

(1)(a) According to the Correctional Services Act, Act 111 of 1998 offenders sentenced to life incarceration before 1 October 2004 had to serve a minimum detention period of 20 years before being eligible for consideration for placement on parole. However, on 15 July 2011 the North Gauteng High Court handed down a judgment in the Van Wyk case which had the effect to change the minimum detention period for offenders sentenced to life incarceration before 1 October 2004 prior to them being eligible for consideration for placement on parole. The implication was that the previous credit system was also applicable to those offenders sentenced to life sentences from 1 August 1993 up to 30 September 2004 and after allocation of the maximum number of credits advanced their consideration dates from 20 years to 13 years and 4 months.

(1)(b)(i) & (ii) Section 63 of the Correctional Services Act, Act 8 of 1959; and section 136 of the Correctional Services Act, No 111 of 1998 determines the minimum periods of sentence that must be served before consideration may be given for possible placement.

(2) The mentioned offender was sentenced to life imprisonment on 11 January 2002 and is eligible for consideration for possible parole. However, parole applications are submitted in accordance with and in compliance to section 42(2) (d) of the Correctional Services Act, Act 111 of 1998, as amended. As soon as the requirements of the aforementioned section are complied with, the Case Management Committee will submit the profile report to the Correctional Supervision and Parole Board (CSPB). The CSPB will then make a submission to the National Council for Correctional Services for a recommendation to the Minister.

(3) See (2) above

(4) See (2) above

Reply:

(a)(i)(aa), (bb), (cc) and (ii) Refer to Annexure 1

(b) The sentence length of each of the 21 239 offenders referred to in Annexure 1 is available however, a hard copy of the information will consist of ±433 pages. The Honourable Member may confirm if this high volume information is still required.

Reply:

(a) I wish to inform the Honorable member that I received 64 applications for the granting of Senior Consultus status for each quarter since my appointment on 25 May 2014, which are explained in details as follows:

QUARTER 1 2014

Total Applications received in First Quarter 2014= 0
BAR COUNCIL	NUMBER AND NAME OF APPLICANTS	DATE RECEIVED	STATUS
Backlog Applications received in 2013 and Jan-May 2014: 0.
QUARTER 2 2014
Total Applications received in Second Quarter 2014= 2
BAR COUNCIL	NUMBER AND NAME OF APPLICANTS	DATE RECEIVED	STATUS
KwaZulu-Natal Bar	Adv G R Thatcher	3 June 2014	Application approved
Free State Society of Advocates	Adv L Le Roux Pohl	18 June 2014	Application approved
QUARTER 3 2014
Total Applications received in Third Quarter 2014= 12
BAR COUNCIL	NUMBER AND NAME OF APPLICANTS	DATE RECEIVED	STATUS
National Bar Council (formerly the Independent Association of Advocates of South Africa)	Adv DM Abbey Adv Jan Bekker Adv J A De Freitus Adv C Fouche Adv MAJ Hassim Adv MA Hawyes Adv M Klein Adv J T Marishane Adv BVL Momoti Adv T L Mosikatsana Adv M W Mvune Adv AH Davey	22 September 2014	Referred back to National Bar Council of South Africa for further information.
QUARTER 4 2014
Total Applications received in Fourth Quarter 2014= 4
BAR COUNCIL	NUMBER AND NAME OF APPLICANTS	DATE RECEIVED	STATUS
Free State Society of Advocates	Adv N. Snellenburg	20 October 2014	Application approved
KZN Society of Advocates	Adv J Nxusani Adv M W Collins Adv T G Madonsela	27 November 2014	Application approved
QUARTER 1 2015
Total Applications received in First Quarter 2015= 21
BAR COUNCIL	NUMBER AND NAME OF APPLICANTS	DATE RECEIVED	STATUS
Pretoria Society of Advocates	Adv J G Naudé Adv T P Krüger Adv H F Oosthuizen Adv A J South Adv T W G Bester Adv H K Kooverjie Adv J A Motepe	10 February 2015	Application approved
Gauteng Society of Advocates	Adv J J Hattingh	05 March 2015	Application approved
JHB Bar Council	Adv J J Roestorf Adv P van der Berg Adv R M Robinson Adv D J Joubert Adv N Konstantinides Adv F A Boda Adv L Gcabashe Adv S Stein Adv J Wilson Adv FM Sikhakhane	13 March 2015	Application approved
KZN Society of Advocates	Adv S M Khan dv G D Goddard Adv R G Mossop	23 March 2015	Processing Application November 2015.
QUARTER 2 2015
Total Applications received in Second Quarter 2015= 16
BAR COUNCIL	NUMBER AND NAME OF APPLICANTS	DATE RECEIVED	STATUS
Eastern Cape Society of Advocates	Adv A G Dugmore Adv P Kroon Adv T M Euijen Adv O Ronaasen Adv N Mullins	18 June 2015	Processing Applications
National Bar Council (formerly the Independent Association of Advocates of South Africa)	Adv Elizabeth Crouse	18 June 2015	Processing Application
Johannesburg Society of Advocates	Adv Pincus Adv M T Ohannessian Adv A M de Kok Adv H J Smith Adv C F Van der Merwe Adv G B Rome Adv Q G Leech Adv DL Wood Adv P G Seleka Adv A L Platt	25 June 2015	Processing Applications
QUARTER 3 2015
Total Applications received in Third Quarter 2015= 5
BAR COUNCIL	NUMBER AND NAME OF APPLICANTS	DATE RECEIVED	STATUS
KZN Society of Advocates	Adv P J Blomkamp Adv J E Hoowse	2 September 2015	Processing Applications
Church Square Association of Advocates	Adv W F Pienaar Adv S J J Van Rensburg Adv W F Nel	8 September 2015	Processing Applications
QUARTER 4 2015
Total Applications received in Fourth Quarter 2015= 4
BAR COUNCIL	NUMBER AND NAME OF APPLICANTS	DATE RECEIVED	STATUS
Bhisho Society of Advocates	Adv PG Beningfield Adv TM Ntsaluba	22 October 2015	Processing Application
Free State Society of Advocates	Adv J Nel	3 November 2015	Processing Application
Eastern Cape Society of Advocates	Adv B C Dyke	13 November 2015	Processing Application

(b) How many of the specified applications did I approve respectively?

I wish to inform the Honorable member that I recommend applications for Senior Consultus status to the Honorable President for consideration.

As indicated in the table in paragraph (a) above, I have recommended 40 of the mentioned applications to the Hon President for approval, except for 24 applications received from the National Bar Council, which did not have the full information required.

Reply:

Yes, the National Commissioner has taken steps to ensure that the Department of Correctional Services improves on its audit outcomes, in particular to resolve qualifications on its financial statements, eliminate non-compliance to laws and regulations as well as enhancing the system of internal controls. Since 2005/6 until 2013/14 financial years, the department had continually received qualification due to asset management. Internal controls on management of tangible movable assets were enhanced over time, resulting in resolution of this matter during the previous financial year, i.e. 2014/15.

In the same year (i.e. 2014/15), the basis of qualification was a new matter on contingent liabilities. The Auditor General was “unable to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence for claims against the department because it did not have adequate systems and processes to record and maintain a register for claims against the department”, 2014-15 Report of the Auditor General.

Steps that have already been taken to address emerging qualifications include capacitating the Legal services component. In this regard, a vacancy of Head of Legal Services has been filled during the year.

Operational action plan which seeks to address weaknesses in contingent liability registers is presented below:

Activities	Measure	Timeframes
Review and update of contingent liabilities register	Contingent liabilities register- reflecting all current claims; and corresponding source documents	1 August 2015 – 30 October 2015
Request State Attorneys’ preliminary verification of claims	All claims contained in the Register verified and confirmed by various state attorneys servicing DCS	30 November 2015
Internal auditing of contingent liabilities register	Internal Audit Report. Findings of the internal audit addressed.	30 January 2016
Submission of register to AGSA for their preliminary auditing.	Findings of the AGSA’s preliminary audit addressed.	28 February 2016
Request final State Attorneys’ verification of claims	All claims contained in the Register verified and confirmed by various state attorneys servicing DCS.	31 March 2016
Submission of final disclosure note for inclusion in AFS	Complete and verified contingent liabilities submitted timeously.	15 April 2016

In order to improve the departmental system of internal controls, the inadequate capacity within assurance services has been identified as a key root cause to matters of non-compliance with laws and regulations. In this regard the following interventions are either underway or have been finalized:

• The Internal Control and Compliance (ICC) component has been capacitated through the appointment of Head of ICC;
• The establishment and capacitation of a risk management unit within ICC will be carried out during the current financial year;
• Recruitment of additional internal auditors at regional / provincial level

The department has prioritized investigations into irregular, fruitless and wasteful expenditure as the first step towards effective consequence management. The Inspectorate directorate under ICC is currently investigating backlog of cases of non- compliance to SCM processes which include amongst others, non-disclosure of interest, irregular, fruitless and wasteful expenditure. The National Commissioner also appointed an Investigation Steering Committee to provide oversight on the process of investigation as well as making recommendations to National Commissioner on disciplinary steps to be taken against officials who have failed to comply with policies and procedures.

As at end 31 October 2015, the status of investigations is as follows:

Status of investigations	Total cases	Cases Finalized	Investigations in progress	Investigations not yet started
Total	649	476	41	132

Reply:

1. Yes, the internal investigation into the escape of a certain person from the Warmbokkeveld Correctional Centre has been concluded and submitted to the delegated authority where decision has been taken for disciplinary measures to be instituted.
2. Following recommendations of the internal investigation, a chairperson and an initiator for the disciplinary process have been appointed. The disciplinary process is yet to be concluded.

Reply:

All offenders have a right to be considered for placement upon completion of the required minimum detention period, irrespective of their social standing. Offenders who meet the set criteria for consideration of parole will have their placement approved irrespective of whether they have money or not.

Legal representation is not a prerequisite for consideration for parole, medical parole or correctional supervision as such offenders who cannot afford legal representatives are not disadvantaged during consideration for placement. In fact offenders do not have to apply for consideration for placement on parole or under correctional supervision as they are automatically identified as and when they become eligible for consideration.

The two of the three mentioned individuals were both sentenced in terms of section 276(1)(i) of the Criminal Procedure Act, Act 51 of 1977. In line with the provisions of section 73(7)(a) of the Correctional Services Act, 1998 (Act No. 111 of 1998, they , like all other offenders sentenced under the same provisions, qualified to be considered for placement under correctional supervision after serving 1/6 of sentence. There are a number of other offenders who have been placed under correctional supervision after serving 1/6 of their sentences who have not received media attention.

One of the three mentioned individuals was placed on parole on medical grounds on 3 March 2009 in terms of the provisions of Section 79 of the Correctional Services Act, Act No. 111 of 1998, before it was amended. Therefore, he was considered in terms of the then applicable legislation. The medical parole legislation was reviewed and Section 14 of the Correctional Services Amendment Act, Act No. 5 of 2011, which introduced the new medical parole system, came into effect on 01 March 2012.

Parole, medical parole or correctional supervision does not remit the sentence meted out by a court in that offenders placed out, either on parole, medical parole or correctional supervision, are expected to serve the remainder of their sentences in the community under close supervision of officials of the Department of Correctional Services until expiry of their sentences.

Reply:

I wish to inform the Honourable Member that Mr Voice Morris Sambo was refused amnesty by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) because he failed to make full disclosure.

The TRC nevertheless recommended that despite the refusal of Mr Sambo’s application, the Committee is of the view that in the light of the continued and considerable harassment that the applicant was subjected to and particularly in the light of the extremely harsh sentence that the applicant received, that this is an appropriate case for executive intervention. Accordingly, the TRC recommended that the Ministries of Justice and Correctional Services investigate the matter with a view to affording the applicant an appropriate reduction in sentence.

Sentences are, however, imposed by the courts. I as Minister of Justice of and Correctional Services, have no power to reduce a sentence or to pardon those who have been found guilty and sentenced by the courts.

I would recommend however, that Mr Sambo consider the following two (2) options:

Firstly, applying for a Presidential pardon to the President of the Republic of South Africa, who has the power to pardon offenders sentenced to direct imprisonment. It is the prerogative of the President whether to grant or not to grant pardon.

Secondly, if Mr Sambo meets the minimum requirements for parole, he can submit his application to be considered for parole to the Parole Board.

Reply:

Yes, he did escape from the Warmbokkeveld Correctional Centre on 11 September 2015.

  (a) On Saturday morning, 12 September 2015, it was found that the head count of inmates at unlock did not rally with the lockup number. There was a discrepancy of one (1) inmate not accounted for. A roll call was conducted and it was noted that one unsentenced offender, admitted on Friday, 11 September 2015 was not in the Correctional Centre. The case was reported to the local South African Police Services (SAPS) and the offender was re-arrested by the SAPS within an hour of the report.

On further investigation it was established that the inmate had, upon admission, gone to the toilets located next to the doorway leading into and out of the building and close to the parked SAPS vehicle. The inmate then managed to slip through the door unnoticed and he hid himself in the undercarriage of a SAPS vehicle that later exited the centre.

   (b) Yes, an investigation has been launched into the matter and the inmate has been charged for escaping from lawful custody and his next court appearance is on 09 November 2015 (SAPS Ceres Case Number 306/7/15)

  (c) The internal investigation is still continuing and where needed, disciplinary action against Correctional Officials will be instituted.

Reply:

(a), (b), (c) and (d):

As the Honourable member is aware, in terms of section 181(3) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, all organs of state, through legislative and others measures, must assist and protect all the institutions supporting constitutional democracy, including the Public Protector, to ensure the independence, impartiality, dignity and effectiveness of these institutions.

It is, therefore, the responsibility of all organs of state, including the President, the national executive and Government, as referred to by the Honourable member, to evaluate the number of requests from citizens and organisations to the Public Protector to investigate the complaints of the abuse of authority from 1 September 2010 to 31 August 2015, in order to act upon it as indicated in paragraphs (a) to (d) of the Honourable member’s question.

In view of the above, I would kindly advise the Honourable member to scrutinize the relevant findings in all the Public Protector’s reports during the period in question and if necessary address his questions to the organs of state concerned.

As far as could be ascertained from the reports of the Public Protector during the period in question, there were no requests from citizens and organisations to the Public Protector to investigate complaints of the abuse of authority against the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development and it was therefore not necessary for the Department to act upon it as indicated in paragraphs (a) to (d) of the Honourable member’s question.

(e) Government has been supportive of the Public Protector’s requests for increasing its investigative capacity as is evident by the significant increase in its budget allocation throughout the previous Medium Term Expenditure Framework (MTEF) periods. The Honourable member may also be aware that Parliament approved the revised organizational structure of the Public Protector comprising of 420 posts in the 2012/2013 financial year. At the time, the Public Protector was advised by my colleague the Minister of Finance to develop a multi-year implementation plan to ensure that critical posts are prioritized and filled within the medium term expenditure framework allocations. During his 2015 Medium Term Budget Policy Statement on 21 October 2015, the Minister of Finance also indicated that the Public Protector will receive an additional allocation to address capacity challenges.

It should also be noted that within the current economic climate it is expected of all institutions supporting constitutional democracy, including the Public Protector, to work together to determine how to deal with matters in a more economic, cost effective and efficient manner and to ensure that there is no duplication as it relates to their mandates.

The Honourable member may further be aware, that the National Assembly is still seized with the report of the Ad hoc Committee on the Review of Chapter 9 and associated Institutions often referred to as the Kader Asmal report. This report contains a number of recommendations that may have far-reaching implications for the institutions supporting constitutional democracy, including the Public Protector. The Speaker of the National Assembly recently convened a workshop of relevant stakeholders in order to exchange views and to finalize the National Assembly’s position in order to help Parliament to adopt the report.

With all the above in mind and given our limited resources, it is my view that the Public Protector should be able to execute its mandate and deliver on its core business responsibilities within the budget allocation and assistance that was provided for by Government.

 

Reply:

The South African Government has requested the International Criminal Court for an extension of the time-limit to submit our view on the events surrounding Omar Al Bashir’s attendance of the African Union Summit in Johannesburg from 13 to 15 June 2015, until such time as the ongoing judicial proceedings before the South African Courts are finalized.

The Pre- Trial Chamber of the ICC has granted an extension and has ordered the competent authorities in the Republic of South Africa to report to the Chamber on any developments in the judicial proceedings as they occur; and should no such developments occur prior to 15 December 2015, to submit a report detailing the status of the relevant domestic judicial proceedings not later than 31 December 2015.

The Honourable Member’s request for reasons is therefore premature.

 

Reply:

A Special Dispensation was adopted on 21 November 2007 following an announcement by the President addressing a Joint Sitting of Parliament in order to facilitate the granting of Presidential pardon for individuals who have committed offences they believe were in pursuit of political objectives in terms of section 84 (2) (j) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996. On 19 January 2008 the President announced the appointment of a Reference Group that will consider applications for pardoning and to advise the President of the "special process" for the pardoning. The Reference Group and the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development handled and managed the administration of the process. After consultation with the office of the President, the department has resuscitated this process and it is now at an advanced stage. However, it should be emphasized that only those individuals who applied for the presidential pardon are currently considered by a Ministerial Task Team.

At this stage it can be confirmed that no presidential pardons were granted to sentenced offenders. However, offenders in the above mentioned category who qualifies in terms of the normal parole placement policy are considered for parole placement and only those who comply with all requirements are released on parole. The Ministerial Task Team ensured that offenders who applied in terms of the Special Dispensation and still incarcerated have done the following programs to prepare them for eventual parole release:

• Life skills with social workers (orientation, defining of self- image, completion of collage presentation, self-knowledge and self- acceptance , development , motivation, future planning).
• Life skills with psychologists
• Pre-release (health education, financial management, relationships, restorative justice, finding employment, parole conditions, substance abuse relapse prevention)
• Cross roads
• Substance abuse
• Anger in anger out
• Heart lines
• Restorative justice / VOD / VOM
• Recreational programs
• Spiritual care
• Hope Foundation: purple ribbon for peace: (conflict analysis, emotional planning, active listening, assertiveness, problem solving, negotiation, mediation)

Reply:

I wish to inform the Honourable Member that I have been informed by the South African Human Rights Commission, that yes, the Commission has made follow-ups in this regard.

I have furthermore been informed that following numerous correspondences (including a letter in February 2015) sent to the Municipality requesting an update on the implementation of the recommendations in the report, the Municipality appealed the Commission’s findings.

In September 2015, the Office of the Chairperson of the South African Human Rights Commission dismissed the Municipality’s appeal and the provincial office is now engaging the Municipality with a view to obtain the Municipality’s time-framed implementation plan aimed at effecting the recommendations in the report.

 

.

Reply:

I wish to inform the Honourable Member that yes, I and the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development have received a communication from the Legal Attaché of the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in South Africa in this regard.

(a) During June 2015, the Legal Attaché (FBI) in South Africa, forwarded a letter to the Department, attaching a copy of an indictment related to the FIFA matter.

(b) The purpose of the letter was to bring the contents of the indictment under the attention of the Department. It was also stated in the letter that the FBI was looking forward to the continued partnership between the FBI, the American Department of Justice and the South African Department of Justice and Constitutional Development.

The Department submitted the letter to me in a memorandum, informing me of the contents of the letter as well as the indictment. I was also informed that a formal request for assistance has not yet been received from the American authorities. I noted the contents of the memorandum, including the indictment, and forwarded copies of the indictment to the Inter-Ministerial Committee on Corruption, the Minister of Sport and Recreation, the Department of International Relations and Cooperation and the Chairperson of the Anti-Corruption Task Team (ACTT).

.

Reply:

(a)(i), (ii), (iii) and (b):

NUMBER OF FOREIGN NATIONALS AS ON 10 AUGUST 2015
NATIONALITY	SENTENCE GROUPS
	REMAND DETAINEES	DETAINEES AWAITING DEPORTATION	SENTENCED	ALL SENTENCE GROUPS
ALGERIA	0		1	1
AMERICAN SAMOA	0		2	2
ANGOLA	14		65	79
ARGENTINA	0		2	2
AUSTRALIA	0		1	1
AUSTRIA	0		2	2
BANGLADESH	14		5	19
BENIN	1		3	4
BOLIVIA	1		44	45
BOTSWANA	4		11	15
BRAZIL	2		20	22
BRIT. CARRIBEAN FED (JA,WL,WV)	0		1	1
BRITISH INDIAN OCEAN TERRITORY	0		2	2
BULGARIA	4		6	10
BURUNDI	17		18	35
CAMEROON	4		11	15
CANADA	0		1	1
CAPE VERDE	0		2	2
CHINA	8		15	23
COLOMBIA	0		4	4
CONGO	57		67	124
CZECH REPUBLIC	1		0	1
DENMARK	0		1	1
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC	0		1	1
ECUADOR	0		5	5
EGYPT	2		1	3
EL SALVADOR	0		1	1
ERITREA	0		1	1
ETHIOPIA	18		13	31
FRANCE	0		2	2
FRENCH GUIANA	0		1	1
GAMBIA	1		0	1
GHANA	3		16	19
GUINEA	2		3	5
GUINEA-BISSAU	0		2	2
GUYANA	1		9	10
ICELAND	0		0	0
INDIA	3		8	11
IRELAND	1		0	1
ISRAEL	1		0	1
JAMAICA	0		2	2
KENYA	7		18	25
LATVIA	1		0	1
LESOTHO	467	11	1044	1522
LIBYAN ARAB JAMAHIRIYA	0		1	1
LIBERIA	2		1	3
LIECHTENSTEIN	1		0	1
MACAO	1		0	1
MALAWI	317	26	218	561
MALI	0		1	1
MAURITIUS	0		1	1
MOZAMBIQUE	710	8	1665	2383
NAMIBIA	17		23	40
NETHERLANDS	0		1	1
NIGER	3		1	4
NIGERIA	202		250	452
NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS	0		1	1
PAKISTAN	23		21	44
PARAGUAY	0		4	4
PERU	1		23	24
PORTUGAL	0		3	3
RWANDA	0		1	1
SENEGAL	0		3	3
SERBIA AND MONTENEGRO	1		3	4
SIERRA LEONE	1		1	2
SOMALIA	28		17	45
SPAIN	1		4	5
SUDAN	1		2	3
SWAZILAND	41		180	221
TAIWAN, PROVINCE OF CHINA	0		3	3
TAJIKISTAN	1		0	1
TANZANIA, UNITED REPUBLIC OF	141	2	188	331
THAILAND	0		1	1
TOGO	1		0	1
TURKEY	0		1	1
UGANDA	10	2	20	32
UNITED KINGDOM	0		5	5
UNITED STATES	0		1	1
VENEZUELA	1		3	4
VIET NAM	2		4	6
ZAIRE	0		5	5
ZAMBIA	4		17	21
ZIMBABWE	1324	9	2234	3567
TOTAL	3468	58	6318	9844

(c) Services are provided to all inmates within the South African Corrections System irrespective of their nationality. However, it is internationally accepted that foreign nationals in the correctional system of any country present a challenge due to their unfamiliarity with the language and culture as well as the lack of close contact with their families.

Reply:

Yes, progress has been made in that all relevant Justice, Crime Prevention and Security (JCPS) Departments were consulted and a process of approaching Cabinet for a decision on a South African position on prisoner transfer agreements with other countries has been initiated.

(a) and (b). Fall away.

Reply:

a) I wish to inform the Honourable Member that the Senior Management of the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development [DoJ&CD] and the National Prosecuting Authority [NPA] are continuing to engage with a view to ensuring alignment and continued cooperation within the corporate support services environment. This will ensure that a single set of policies and systems are in place by the end of the current financial year, which would be applicable to both the DoJ&CD and the NPA.

The 2014/2015 Annual Report of the DoJ&CD submitted to Parliament was a consolidated document, which also included NPA information and henceforth the planning and reporting processes will also be integrated.

I as the Minister of Justice and Correctional Services, the Director-General [DG] and the National Director of Public Prosecutions [NDPP] have agreed that the NDPP will shortly submit a proposal to the Minister for discussion, such proposal addressing a possible way forward with regards to administrative support services which will remain in the NPA in order for the NDPP to fulfill the administrative legislation requirements, including reporting. This proposal will then also address issues of structure within the NPA and post provisioning associated with such structure of support.

b) Currently the NPA still performs the corporate support services as previously, until the matters in the response to [a] above, have been finalized.

Reply:

1. Yes, there was an outbreak of Leptospirosis at the Pollsmoor Remand Detention facility.

The details are as follows:

• Two cases of Leptospirosis have been identified in August 2015.
• One Leptospirosis case identified in September 2015.

	Case 1	Case 2	Case 3
Patient Initials	Patient BC	Patient AM	Patient DV
Age	52	49	44
Race	Coloured	African	Coloured
Gender	Male	Male	Male
Unit	Section A (Cell 591)	Section A (Cell 545)	Section E 2
Date of onset of illness	25.07.2015 Returned to Clinic: 01.08.2015	04.08.2015 Returned to Clinic: 11.08.2015	31.08.2015 Returned 04.09.2015
Referred to Victoria Hospital	01.08.2015	11.08.2015	04.09.2015
Treatment Outcome date	Demised : 02.08.2015 at Victoria hospital	Discharged from Victoria hospital on the 20th August 2015	Discharged from Victoria hospital on the 17.09.2015

N.B. Confirmation of Leptospirosis Diagnosis by the Communicable Disease Control: Department of Health Western Cape was received by DCS on the 20th August 2015 for the first two cases identified at Victoria Hospital. Third case confirmation was received on the 07th September 2015.

2. Actions that had been taken to :

(a) Quarantine inmates,

• Inmates were not quarantined; however those with moderate to severe signs were transferred immediately to Victoria Hospital as recommended by the National Institute for Communicable Diseases (NICD).
• All inmates who presented with nonspecific signs and symptoms were tested and treated empirically for Leptospirosis.

(b) Fumigate their personal effects,

• Fumigation intervals of the cells have been increased.
• Personal Protective Clothing and Equipment (PPE) was purchased and distributed for use in all areas that can expose one to risk of infection (e.g. waste handlers, cleaners).
• All Remand Detainees were issued with the prescribed uniform.
• Frequent washing and disinfecting of personal clothing was encouraged.

(c) deal with the rat infestation :

Pest Control service providers have been contracted for rodents and other pests control measures.

• Advanced mechanical rodent traps were placed at access points to eradicate the rodents.
• Gas fumigation of the tunnel will be implemented as per evacuation plan.
• The Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA) was contacted to remove feral rats.
• Waste Management has been intensified and waste collection has been reviewed from twice a week to daily. Waste storage procedures have been implemented.

• Environmental hygiene was intensified through identification of additional cleaning teams, increasing the frequency of cleaning programs to twice daily and the entire facility scrub down was conducted as per facility evacuation plan.
• Weekly inspection is being done by the City of Cape Town Environmental Health Practitioners and DCS officials.

(d) Transfer inmates to other facilities

• In-service training was provided to clinical staff with regard to clinical presentation, diagnosis and prevention of Leptospirosis by 4th September 2015.
• Inmates were screened as per NICD guidelines before they were evacuated to other Correctional Centers.
• Evacuation plan was developed and inmates were transferred to other facilities in the Western Cape as per plan. The evacuation and transfer plan was implemented per schedule to mitigate risk factors.
• All Provincial Stakeholders were informed about the evacuation plan.

3.Long term steps being taken to improve sanitation, hygiene and overcrowding problems at the specified facility as recently highlighted in the report by the former judge of the SA Constitutional Court, Justice Cameron.

Sanitation and hygiene:

• Medication available and issued as prescribed.
• Meals are provided three times per day as per meal plan.
• Mattresses and blankets are issued on admission for sleeping purposes to all offenders.
• Cleaning material availability monitored and cleaning procedures intensified.

• Overcrowding:Comprehensive HIV and AIDS as well as Tuberculosis programmes and services are implemented with the support of external partners. Condoms are distributed however there is malicious misuse of condoms (trafficking of contraband).

The Department of Correctional Services implements a multi-pronged strategy to manage overcrowding .The strategy consists of the following dimensions:

• Managing levels of remand detainees (RD’s) through IJS Case Management Task Team & Inter-Sectoral Committee on Child Justice;
• Managing levels of sentenced inmates through improving effective & appropriate use of conversion of sentence to community correctional supervision, release on parole, & transfers between correctional centres to attempt to establish some degree of evenness of overcrowding;
• Ensuring progress with DCS capital works programme to upgrade correctional facilities & to build new correctional centres that are both cost effective & rehabilitation oriented;
• Encouraging debate in South Africa about reason for incarceration as a sentence & encouraging an approach to appropriate sentencing that is focused on facilitating rehabilitation;
• Enhancing community correctional supervision so that it can be better utilized as an appropriate sentence for less serious crimes;
• Improving correction & development programmes within DCS to ensure enhanced facilitation of rehabilitation that targets offending behaviour;

• Encouraging improvement of first & second levels of correction in family & social institutions & social & economic sector government departments respectively to decrease rate of entry into criminal justice system; and
• Encouraging community involvement in social reintegration of offenders back into their community in order to assist in reducing levels of repeat offending
  .

Reply:

(1)(a) The offender was sentenced on 6 December 2006 to four (4) years imprisonment in terms of section 276(1)(i) of the Criminal Procedure Act, Act 51 of 1977 for driving a motor vehicle without the owner’s permission and theft. He was placed on Correctional Supervision on the 17 August 2007. The offender absconded from the system of community corrections. He committed crimes during this period and was sentenced on the 19th April 2008 to 15 years imprisonment for fraud and forgery and again on 20th April 2010 was sentenced to five (05) years imprisonment for fraud and forgery and the court ordered that the sentence to run concurrently with the 15 years imprisonment. He was considered by the Correctional Supervision and Parole Board (CSPB) for possible placement on parole on the 16th October 2014 and was given a further profile for the 18th February 2015.

(b) During consideration by the CSPB it was discovered that the offender did not complete his Correctional Supervision period and Community Corrections Office of Kgoši Mampuru II Management Area was approached for clarity on the number of outstanding days to be served for parole violation. Clarification was received from the Community Corrections offices that the offender still has to serve an additional 1193 days of his previous sentence. The effective sentence is currently 15 years plus 1193 days imprisonment.

(2) On 20 October 2015 the Community Corrections Office at Kgoši Mampuru II Management Area visited the CSPB at Leeuwkop Management Area, explained to the offender the period to be served for his absconding. Subsequently, he appeared before the CSPB on the 20th October 2015 and it was decided that he will be reconsidered on the 21st July 2016.

Reply:

a) Government is dealing with a delay in submitting country reports due to a huge backlog of outstanding reports, lack of capacity and coordination mechanism over the years.

b) As a response, Government in early 2012 committed itself to make a positive turn- around in this regard. An Inter-departmental Committee on Treaty Obligations (IDC) has been established to work, amongst others, on the backlog of country reports. The IDC reports to the Directors- General of the Justice, Crime Prevention and Security (JCPS), International Cooperation, Trade and Security (ICTS) and Social Protection Community and Human Development (SPCHD) Clusters. The Ministers of Justice and Correctional Services, International Relations and Co-operation and Minister in the Presidency responsible for Performance, Monitoring and Evaluation have oversight on compliance with treaty obligations. Officials are undergoing training on report writing; and a Government Manual on Treaty Obligations has been prepared by the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development, which co-chairs the IDC with the Department of International Relations and Co-operation. The report under the Convention Against Torture, although there was a delay, has been submitted to the United Nations Human Rights Council (HRC). This report is being summarized currently as requested by the HRC.

Reply:

1. As at 10 September 2015 there was a total of two thousand two hundred and fifty eight (2258) persons who are sentenced to life imprisonment and who qualify for consideration for parole.

2. Yes, at the outset it is important that the Honourable member takes note that members of the National Council for Correctional Services are professionals appointed by the Minister in terms of Section 83 of the Correctional Services Act, 1998 (Act 111 of 1998). They are not in full time employment of Correctional Services.

As a result of the backlog created by the Van Wyk Judgment (case nr: 40915/10 in the North Gauteng High Court Pretoria) the newly appointed NCCS meets on a regular basis; meetings have been scheduled on a two weekly basis.

The consideration of offenders for parole is not a matter that can be dealt with lightly. Considerable time and effort is put into the deliberation of individual cases before a recommendation is made to the Minister of Justice and Correctional Services. Approximately thirty (30) cases are considered during a one day meeting and fifty (50) during a two day meeting. As at 10 September 2015 a total of three hundred and eighty eight (388) of the specified persons has not yet been considered by the National Council for Correctional Services.

3. Yes; Regular meetings are scheduled in an attempt to deal with the backlog.

Reply:

(a), (b), (c) and (d):

As the Honourable member is aware, in terms of section 181(3) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, all organs of state, through legislative and others measures, must assist and protect all the institutions supporting constitutional democracy, including the Public Protector, to ensure the independence, impartiality, dignity and effectiveness of these institutions.

It is, therefore, the responsibility of all organs of state, including the President, the national executive and Government, as referred to by the Honourable member, to evaluate the number of requests from citizens and organisations to the Public Protector to investigate the complaints of the abuse of authority from 1 September 2010 to 31 August 2015, in order to act upon it as indicated in paragraphs (a) to (d) of the Honourable member’s question.

In view of the above, I would kindly advise the Honourable member to scrutinize the relevant findings in all the Public Protector’s reports during the period in question and if necessary address his questions to the organs of state concerned.

 

As far as could be ascertained from the reports of the Public Protector during the period in question, there were no requests from citizens and organisations to the Public Protector to investigate complaints of the abuse of authority against the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development and it was therefore not necessary for the Department to act upon it as indicated in paragraphs (a) to (d) of the Honourable member’s question.

(e) Government has been supportive of the Public Protector’s requests for increasing its investigative capacity as is evident by the significant increase in its budget allocation throughout the previous Medium Term Expenditure Framework (MTEF) periods. The Honourable member may also be aware that Parliament approved the revised organizational structure of the Public Protector comprising of 420 posts in the 2012/2013 financial year. At the time, the Public Protector was advised by my colleague the Minister of Finance to develop a multi-year implementation plan to ensure that critical posts are prioritized and filled within the medium term expenditure framework allocations. During his 2015 Medium Term Budget Policy Statement on 21 October 2015, the Minister of Finance also indicated that the Public Protector will receive an additional allocation to address capacity challenges.

It should also be noted that within the current economic climate it is expected of all institutions supporting constitutional democracy, including the Public Protector, to work together to determine how to deal with matters in a more economic, cost effective and efficient manner and to ensure that there is no duplication as it relates to their mandates.

The Honourable member may further be aware, that the National Assembly is still seized with the report of the Ad hoc Committee on the Review of Chapter 9 and associated Institutions often referred to as the Kader Asmal report. This report contains a number of recommendations that may have far-reaching implications for the institutions supporting constitutional democracy, including the Public Protector. The Speaker of the National Assembly recently convened a workshop of relevant stakeholders in order to exchange views and to finalize the National Assembly’s position in order to help Parliament to adopt the report.

With all the above in mind and given our limited resources, it is my view that the Public Protector should be able to execute its mandate and deliver on its core business responsibilities within the budget allocation and assistance that was provided for by Government.

 

Reply:

(1)(a) The offender was sentenced on 6 December 2006 to four (4) years imprisonment in terms of section 276(1)(i) of the Criminal Procedure Act, Act 51 of 1977 for driving a motor vehicle without the owner’s permission and theft. He was placed on Correctional Supervision on the 17 August 2007. The offender absconded from the system of community corrections. He committed crimes during this period and was sentenced on the 19th April 2008 to 15 years imprisonment for fraud and forgery and again on 20th April 2010 was sentenced to five (05) years imprisonment for fraud and forgery and the court ordered that the sentence to run concurrently with the 15 years imprisonment. He was considered by the Correctional Supervision and Parole Board (CSPB) for possible placement on parole on the 16th October 2014 and was given a further profile for the 18th February 2015.

(b) During consideration by the CSPB it was discovered that the offender did not complete his Correctional Supervision period and Community Corrections Office of Kgoši Mampuru II Management Area was approached for clarity on the number of outstanding days to be served for parole violation. Clarification was received from the Community Corrections offices that the offender still has to serve an additional 1193 days of his previous sentence. The effective sentence is currently 15 years plus 1193 days imprisonment.

(2) On 20 October 2015 the Community Corrections Office at Kgoši Mampuru II Management Area visited the CSPB at Leeuwkop Management Area, explained to the offender the period to be served for his absconding. Subsequently, he appeared before the CSPB on the 20th October 2015 and it was decided that he will be reconsidered on the 21st July 2016.

Reply:

1. Yes, there was an outbreak of Leptospirosis at the Pollsmoor Remand Detention facility.

The details are as follows:

• Two cases of Leptospirosis have been identified in August 2015.
• One Leptospirosis case identified in September 2015.

	Case 1	Case 2	Case 3
Patient Initials	Patient BC	Patient AM	Patient DV
Age	52	49	44
Race	Coloured	African	Coloured
Gender	Male	Male	Male
Unit	Section A (Cell 591)	Section A (Cell 545)	Section E 2
Date of onset of illness	25.07.2015 Returned to Clinic: 01.08.2015	04.08.2015 Returned to Clinic: 11.08.2015	31.08.2015 Returned 04.09.2015
Referred to Victoria Hospital	01.08.2015	11.08.2015	04.09.2015
Treatment Outcome date	Demised : 02.08.2015 at Victoria hospital	Discharged from Victoria hospital on the 20th August 2015	Discharged from Victoria hospital on the 17.09.2015

N.B. Confirmation of Leptospirosis Diagnosis by the Communicable Disease Control: Department of Health Western Cape was received by DCS on the 20th August 2015 for the first two cases identified at Victoria Hospital. Third case confirmation was received on the 07th September 2015.

PARLIAMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA NATIONAL ASSEMBLY

2. Actions that had been taken to :

(a) Quarantine inmates,

• Inmates were not quarantined; however those with moderate to severe signs were transferred immediately to Victoria Hospital as recommended by the National Institute for Communicable Diseases (NICD).
• All inmates who presented with nonspecific signs and symptoms were tested and treated empirically for Leptospirosis.

(b) Fumigate their personal effects,

• Fumigation intervals of the cells have been increased.
• Personal Protective Clothing and Equipment (PPE) was purchased and distributed for use in all areas that can expose one to risk of infection (e.g. waste handlers, cleaners).
• All Remand Detainees were issued with the prescribed uniform.
• Frequent washing and disinfecting of personal clothing was encouraged.

(c) deal with the rat infestation :

Pest Control service providers have been contracted for rodents and other pests control measures.

• Advanced mechanical rodent traps were placed at access points to eradicate the rodents.
• Gas fumigation of the tunnel will be implemented as per evacuation plan.
• The Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA) was contacted to remove feral rats.
• Waste Management has been intensified and waste collection has been reviewed from twice a week to daily. Waste storage procedures have been implemented.

PARLIAMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA NATIONAL ASSEMBLY

• Environmental hygiene was intensified through identification of additional cleaning teams, increasing the frequency of cleaning programs to twice daily and the entire facility scrub down was conducted as per facility evacuation plan.
• Weekly inspection is being done by the City of Cape Town Environmental Health Practitioners and DCS officials.

(d) Transfer inmates to other facilities

• In-service training was provided to clinical staff with regard to clinical presentation, diagnosis and prevention of Leptospirosis by 4th September 2015.
• Inmates were screened as per NICD guidelines before they were evacuated to other Correctional Centers.
• Evacuation plan was developed and inmates were transferred to other facilities in the Western Cape as per plan. The evacuation and transfer plan was implemented per schedule to mitigate risk factors.
• All Provincial Stakeholders were informed about the evacuation plan.

3. Long term steps being taken to improve sanitation, hygiene and overcrowding problems at the specified facility as recently highlighted in the report by the former judge of the SA Constitutional Court, Justice Cameron.

Sanitation and hygiene:

• Medication available and issued as prescribed.
• Meals are provided three times per day as per meal plan.
• Mattresses and blankets are issued on admission for sleeping purposes to all offenders.
• Cleaning material availability monitored and cleaning procedures intensified.

PARLIAMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA NATIONAL ASSEMBLY

• Comprehensive HIV and AIDS as well as Tuberculosis programmes and services are implemented with the support of external partners. Condoms are distributed however there is malicious misuse of condoms (trafficking of contraband).

Overcrowding:

The Department of Correctional Services implements a multi-pronged strategy to manage overcrowding .The strategy consists of the following dimensions:

• Managing levels of remand detainees (RD’s) through IJS Case Management Task Team & Inter-Sectoral Committee on Child Justice;
• Managing levels of sentenced inmates through improving effective & appropriate use of conversion of sentence to community correctional supervision, release on parole, & transfers between correctional centres to attempt to establish some degree of evenness of overcrowding;
• Ensuring progress with DCS capital works programme to upgrade correctional facilities & to build new correctional centres that are both cost effective & rehabilitation oriented;
• Encouraging debate in South Africa about reason for incarceration as a sentence & encouraging an approach to appropriate sentencing that is focused on facilitating rehabilitation;
• Enhancing community correctional supervision so that it can be better utilized as an appropriate sentence for less serious crimes;
• Improving correction & development programmes within DCS to ensure enhanced facilitation of rehabilitation that targets offending behaviour;

PARLIAMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA NATIONAL ASSEMBLY

• Encouraging improvement of first & second levels of correction in family & social institutions & social & economic sector government departments respectively to decrease rate of entry into criminal justice system; and
• Encouraging community involvement in social reintegration of offenders back into their community in order to assist in reducing levels of repeat offending.

Reply:

I have been informed by the Department of Home Affairs that 9821 marriages were solemnized in terms of the Civil Union Act for the period 2006 to 2015. The number of divorces granted in terms of the Civil Union Act, are currently not kept separately from other divorces. For example, statistics of divorces in the High Courts are captured as “opposed’’ and ‘’unopposed’’ divorces and do not differentiate between persons divorced in terms of the Marriage Act and the Civil Union Act. The Department of Justice and Constitutional Development is also in the process of improving the information systems in the Regional Courts for the capturing of divorces.

(2) No Honourable Member I will not make a statement as it is not necessary

Reply:

(a)(i) Both Commissioners are Judges from the High Court and are therefore not remunerated by the Commission.

(ii) The total cost for the evidence leaders, the research consultant and the forensic auditor from 27 October 2012 to 31 August 2015, is R73, 240 million, broken down as follows:

 

Reply:

(a) The total cost as at 31 August 2015 is R113, 232 million.

(b) The table below provides the breakdown of the expenditure up to 31 August 2015:

 

Reply:

The Report will be released for public comment before the end of this year.

Reply:

a) In the current financial year (1 April 2015 up to 15 September 2015), the Assets Forfeiture Unit has obtained 128 preservation/restraint orders and 173 forfeiture/confiscation orders.

b) As on 15 September 2015, 89 applications (preservation/restraint or forfeiture/confiscation) were filed but must still be heard in court.

In addition, as on 15 September 2015, 1 698 cases are being investigated and documents drafted but have not been filed in court.

Reply:

1. As at 10 September 2015 there was a total of two thousand two hundred and fifty eight (2258) persons who are sentenced to life imprisonment and who qualify for consideration for parole.
2. Yes, at the outset it is important that the Honourable member takes note that members of the National Council for Correctional Services are professionals appointed by the Minister in terms of Section 83 of the Correctional Services Act, 1998 (Act 111 of 1998). They are not in full time employment of Correctional Services.

As a result of the backlog created by the Van Wyk Judgment (case nr: 40915/10 in the North Gauteng High Court Pretoria) the newly appointed NCCS meets on a regular basis; meetings have been scheduled on a two weekly basis.

The consideration of offenders for parole is not a matter that can be dealt with lightly. Considerable time and effort is put into the deliberation of individual cases before a recommendation is made to the Minister of Justice and Correctional Services. Approximately thirty (30) cases are considered during a one day meeting and fifty (50) during a two day meeting. As at 10 September 2015 a total of three hundred and eighty eight (388) of the specified persons has not yet been considered by the National Council for Correctional Services.

3. Yes; Regular meetings are scheduled in an attempt to deal with the backlog.

Reply:

1. I wish to inform the Hon Member that the Regulations promulgated in terms of the Magistrates Act, 1993, and the relevant Financial Prescripts, do not prescribe the number of domestic and international trips which may be undertaken by a Regional Court President or any of their support staff or persons forming part of such delegations. Regional Court Presidents will undertake each official journey having regard to the purpose, the costs, availability of transport, route, timespan and other relevant circumstances. Regional Court Presidents travel economy class in terms of the current prescripts.

In terms of domestic travel, Regional Court Presidents, as Judicial Heads of the Regional Courts, will, from time to time, be required to travel to attend to various judicial and other statutory obligations. For example, attending meetings of the Regional Court Presidents Forum, Case Flow Management, the Magistrates Commission and its Committees, the South African Judicial Education Council and its Committees, the Rules Board for Courts of Law and its Committees, the Lower Courts Remuneration Committee, the Interpreters Review Committee, the National Efficiency Enhancement Committee, the National Operations Committee, the Development Committee, the Child Justice Forum, the Lower Courts Monitoring Committee and the Library Committee.

For international trips, the Regional Court President (as well as any other magistrate) must submit the request to the Magistrates Commission for consideration. The application must contain full particulars of the conference/ programme to be attended such as location, duration, costs involved, etc. It should furthermore contain information whether the applicant has attended any conferences outside the country and, if so, dates and details of all such conferences. The Chairperson of the Commission will then submit the application, together with his recommendation to the Chief Justice for consideration and approval.

2. The following domestic and international trips were undertaken by each of the Regional Court Presidents for the period 1 September 2014 to 31 August 2015:

Regional Court President	Domestic Trips	International Trips
Limpopo	36	1*
Eastern Cape	37	0
Western Cape	20	0
Kwazulu- Natal	11	0
Free State	9	0
Northern Cape	8	0
Gauteng	5	0
North West	4	0
Mpumalanga	2	0

In the Eastern Cape the Judge President, the Regional Head and the Regional Court President are located in different cities/towns and it is very often more cost effective to fly from Port Elizabeth to East London for meetings whilst in Limpopo the Regional Court President will most of the time have to take two flights to reach her destination if the meeting is not in Gauteng

*The Regional Court President of Limpopo was invited by the UN Women and UNFPA, in partnership with the UNDP and UNODC, to the Global Technical Consultation on the Police and Justice Sector’s Response to Violence Against Women and Girls in Marrakech form 1 to 4 July 2014. Travel and accommodation were carried by the organizers and the Regional Court President was not supported by any delegation from her office.

2.(a)(iii). The total cost for domestic flights, including accommodation, car rental and transfer fees, amounted to R1,212,129.

Reply:

Records show that there are no court orders issued against the Department to rectify short payment of any correctional officials.
 

Reply:

(1)(a) Total amount spent on air travel between Gauteng and Cape Town: R436 339.20

(1)(b) Total number of trips undertaken: 63

(2)(a) Total amount spent on accommodation in Cape Town: R131 421.98

(2)(b) Total amount spent on car hire in Cape Town: R86 601 .25

Reply:

The Respondents are appealing the matter. Judgment in the application for leave to appeal is awaited. As such, we deem it prudent for the appeal processes to be finalised before we consider the matter.

Reply:

I wish to inform the Honourable Member that (a) neither I nor the former Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development travelled to China during 2014-15;

(b) the Deputy Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development did not travel to China during 2014-2015; and

(c) I have been informed that no officials from the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development or from the Office of the Chief Justice, travelled to China during the 2014-15 financial year.

(i) and (ii) therefore fall away.

Reply:

a) I wish to inform the Honourable Member that the investigation is at an advanced stage after suffering delays which both the lead investigator in the South African Police Services and prosecutor in the National Prosecuting Authority left the case in the middle before the investigation was completed.

b) The investigation is anticipated to be finalised during the course of this year (2015).

Reply:

(a) (i) During the period 2012-13, the Chief Justice travelled on official international trips to the Seychelles, Korea, France, Italy, Russia, Germany, Ghana, Mozambique and Mauritius. The total costs for these official trips amounted to R677 214.21

(a) (ii) In the year 2013-14, the Chief Justice travelled on official international trips to Benin, Germany, United Kingdom, Norway, Tanzania, Malaysia, Qatar, Singapore and Nigeria. The total costs for these trips amounted to R879 073.72

(b) (i) 2012-13 - Chief Justice’s entourage

Official trip to Seychelles

The Chief Justice’s entourage consisted of the following Judicial Officers and officials:

• Justice Y Mokgoro, retired Judge of the Constitutional Court
• Justice L Theron, Justice of the Supreme Court of Appeal
• Dr G Moshoeu, Chief Executive Officer of the South African Judicial Education Institute
• Mr A Slingers, Executive Aid to the Chief Justice

Official trip to Korea

The Chief Justice’s entourage consisted of the following persons:

• Mrs A Mogoeng, Chief Justice’s spouse
• Mr A Slingers, Executive Aid to the Chief Justice

Official trip to France, Italy, Russia and Germany

The Chief Justice’s entourage consisted of the following Judicial Officers and officials:

• President L Mpati, President of the Supreme Court of Appeal (All four countries)
• Justice C Jafta, Justice of the Constitutional Court (All four countries)
• Dr K De Wee, Acting Secretary General of the Office of the Chief Justice (As he was then) (All four countries)
• Ms M Sejosengwe, Chief Director: Court Services (As she was then) (All four countries)
• Mr S Masisi, Director: Executive Support (All four countries)

Official trips to Ghana and Mozambique

The Chief Justice’s entourage consisted of the following officials:

• Ms M Sejosengwe, Chief Director: Court Services (As she was then)
• Mr S Masisi, Director: Executive Support

Official trip to Mauritius

The Chief Justice’s entourage consisted of the following persons:

• • Mrs A Mogoeng, Chief Justice’s Spouse
• Mr S Masisi, Director: Executive Support
• Ms R Leyds, Executive Personal Assistant to the Chief Justice.

The costs for the Chief Justice’s entourage for all the official international trips for the period 2012-13 amounted to R1 122 751. 28.

(b) (ii) 2013-14 - Chief Justice’s entourage

Official trip to Benin

The Chief Justice’s entourage consisted of the following officials:

• Mr S Chiloane, Acting Chief Director: Judicial Policy and Research
• Mr A Slingers, Executive Aide to the Chief Justice
• Mr M Mama, Security Coordinator

Official trips to Germany, United Kingdom, Norway

The Chief Justice’s entourage consisted of the following Judicial Officers and officials:

• President L Mpati, President of the Supreme Court of Appeal (All three countries)
• Deputy President K Mthiyane, Deputy President of the Supreme Court of Appeal (All three countries)
• Justice J Van Der Westhuizen, Justice of the Constitutional Court (Germany only)
• Justice S Khampepe, Justice of the Constitutional Court (Germany only)
• Justice J Froneman, Justice of the Constitutional Court (Germany only)
• Justice C Jafta, Justice of the Constitutional Court (Germany only)
• Justice R Zondo, Justice of the Constitutional Court (Germany only)
• Judge President M Leeuw, Judge President of the North West Division of the High Court (United Kingdom and Norway)
• Judge President D Mlambo, Judge President of the Gauteng Division of the High Court (United Kingdom only)
• Ms M Sejosengwe, Secretary General of the Office of the Chief Justice (United Kingdom and Norway)
• Mr S Chiloane, Acting Chief Director: Judicial Policy and Research (All three countries)
• Mr S Masisi, Director: Executive Support (United Kingdom and Norway)
• Mr A Slingers, Executive Aide to the Chief Justice (All three countries)
• Mr Z Jekeqa, Protocol Coordinator (All three countries)

Official trip to Tanzania

The Chief Justice’s entourage consisted of the following officials:

• Mr S Chiloane, Acting Chief Director: Judicial Policy and Research
• Mr A Slingers, Executive Aide to the Chief Justice
• Mr Z Ntswanti, Deputy Director: Research

Official trips to Malaysia, Qatar and Singapore

The Chief Justice’s entourage for the consisted of the following Judicial officers and officials:

• President L Mpati, President of the Supreme Court of Appeal (All three)
• Deputy President K Mthiyane, Deputy President of the Supreme Court of Appeal (Malaysia and Singapore)
• Justice S Majiedt, Justice of the Supreme Court of Appeal (Malaysia and Singapore)
• Judge President M Leeuw, Judge President of the North West Division of the High Court (Malaysia and Singapore)
• Judge President D Mlambo, Judge President of the Gauteng Division of the High Court (Malaysia and Singapore)
• Judge M Rampai, Acting Judge President of the Free State Division of the High Court, (as he was then) (Malaysia and Singapore)
• Judge N Erasmus, Judge of the Western Cape Division of the High Court (Malaysia and Singapore)
• Judge A Jappie, Judge of the KwaZulu-Natal Division of the High Court (All three countries)
• Mr K Nqadala, Regional Court President (Malaysia and Singapore)
• Mr D Niar, Chief Magistrate (Malaysia and Singapore)
• Dr G Moshoeu, Chief Executive Officer of the South African Judicial Education Institute (Malaysia and Singapore)
• Mr M Doralingo, Chief Director: Court Administration (Malaysia and Singapore)
• Mr P Gagai, Director: Judicial Policy (All three countries)
• Adv E Seema, Director: Superior Courts (Malaysia and Singapore)
• Mr S Ntsimane, Executive Manager, Information, Communication and Technology (Malaysia and Singapore)

• Mr G Lesiba, Chairperson of the Integrated Justice System Board (Malaysia and Singapore)
• Mr A Slingers, Executive Aide to the Chief Justice (All three countries)
• Mr Z Jekeqa, Protocol Coordinator (Malaysia and Singapore)

Official trip to Nigeria

The Chief Justice’s entourage consisted of the following persons:

• Mrs A Mogoeng, Chief Justice’s spouse
• Mr M Mama, Security Coordinator

The costs for the Chief Justice’s entourage for all the international trips for the period 2013-14 amounted to R4 287 509. 48.

Reply:

(a) Yes, a report on conditions in the remand detainee section of the Pollsmoor Prison compiled by Justice Edwin Cameron was received by the Department on 07 August 2015.

(b) A detailed action plan was developed by the Department and progress of the implementation thereof is still to be furnished with the Minister.