Reply:

Refer to: Annexure 1 .

Reply:

(1)(a) An amount of R642 886-72 was spent on air travel in the financial year 2014/2015 for employees attending Parliamentary business during 2014-2015; and (b) 120 trips were undertaken;

(2)(a) An amount of R128 994-48 was spent on accommodation; and

(b) an amount of R55 007-56 was spent on car rentals, for employees attending Parliamentary business in Cape Town for the 2014/15 financial year.


END

Reply:

No. I believe the provisions of the Public Protector Act, Act 23 of 1994, has adequate provisions to deal with the issues the Hon Member raises.

Section 7 deals with investigations by the Public Protector, some of the relevant provisions being –

(a) subsection (3)(a) which provides that the Public Protector may request any person at any level of government or performing a public function to assist him or her in the performance of his or her functions with regard to any particular investigation;

(b) subsection (4)(a) which provides that the Public Protector may, by subpoena, direct any person to submit an affidavit or to appear before him or her to give evidence or to produce any document in his or her possession or under his or her control which has a bearing on the matter being investigated; and

(c) subsection (4) (b) which empowers the Public Protector to request an explanation from any person whom he or she reasonably suspects of having information which has a bearing on the matter being investigated.

 

Section 7A deals with entering upon premises by the Public Protector. It provides, among others, that the Public Protector is competent, subject to the authority of a warrant issued by a magistrate or judge, to enter, or authorize another person to enter, any premises and to make such investigation or inquiry as may be necessary and to seize anything which may have a bearing on an investigation. This section even recognises the need to use force to gain entry should the need arise.

Section 9 deals with contempt of the Public Protector and provides that no person may insult the Public Protector or do anything in connection with an investigation which, if the investigation had been proceedings in a court of law, the conduct in question would have amounted to contempt of court.

Section 11 provides for offences and penalties. In terms of section 11(1) a person who contravenes section 9, referred to above, or who interferes with the functioning of the office of the Public Protector as contemplated in section 181(4), referred to above, is guilty of an offence. In terms of section 11(3) any person who, without just cause, refuses or fails to comply with a direction or request under section 7(4), referred to above, or refuses to answer any question put to him or her or who gives an answer which to his or her knowledge is false, is guilty of an offence. The penalty for these offences is a fine not exceeding R40 000 or imprisonment for a period not exceeding 12 months or to both such fine and such imprisonment.

END

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.




END

Reply:

(1)(a) (i) The Department spent R479 694 on my air travel costs between Pretoria and Cape Town for the 2014/15 financial year; and R508 844 for car rentals, which comes to a total of R988 538;

        (ii) I undertook 47 trips between Cape Town and Gauteng to attend Parliamentary business in Cape Town for the specified financial year;

(b)(i) I spent R32 023 on hotel accommodation; and

   (ii) regarding residential and other accommodation, this information is not readily available, as I live in my own house in Pretoria, Gauteng when in Pretoria; and I live in the Parliamentary Village in Cape Town when in Parliamentary session in Cape Town.

(2)(a)(i) Regarding the costs of the Deputy Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development, the Department spent an amount of R202 926 on air travel for 2014/15 and R154 662 for car rentals, which comes to a total of R357 588;

(ii) 67 trips were undertaken between Cape Town and Gauteng by the Deputy Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development;

(b)(i) An amount of R972.00 was spent on hotel accommodation for the relevant Deputy Minister; and

(ii) regarding residential and other accommodation, this information is not readily available, as the Deputy Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development lives in his own house in Gauteng; and he lives in the Parliamentary Village in Cape Town when in Parliamentary session in Cape Town.


END 

 

Reply:

a)   I wish to inform the Honourable Member that the investigation is at an advanced stage after suffering delays when 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).



END

Reply:

Yes.

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.




END

Reply:

The Office of the Chief Justice received its own budget vote with effect from 1 April 2015. I can report that to date the employment equity rate for the employment of persons with disabilities in the Office of the Chief Justice is at 1.2% which is below the national target of 2% by 0.8%.



END

Reply:

 

1. Regulations in terms of the Magistrates Act, 1993 (Act No 90 of 1993) does not prescribe the number of trips that may be undertaken domestically or internationally. Furthermore neither does the said regulation advocate the number as well as position and/or status of persons forming part of such delegations.

Regulation 47 reads as follows:

(i) All official journeys of which itineraries are submitted shall be authorised by the head of office who shall ensure that the journeys are necessary and in the interest of the administration of justice”

(ii) The head of office referred to in subregulation (1) shall consider each application for an official journey, having regard to costs, availability of transport, route, timespan and any other relevant circumstances.

With the exclusion of the Director-General, Deputy Directors-General and persons holding equivalent ranks, paragraph 8.4.10.5.1 of the Departmental Financial Instructions (DFI) limits the number of employees travelling on official duty to address the same matter to three (3).

In addition paragraph 8.4.10.12 of the DFI specifies the following with regards to international travel:

“International travel must be limited to meetings or events that are considered absolutely critical and the number of employees attending such meetings or events must be limited to those employees that are directly involved in the subject matter related to such meetings or events”.

Paragraph 8.4.10.5.3 prescribes that prior approval from the Minister is required for magistrates’ travelling abroad.

2.  (i) domestic trips: please see attached.

    (ii) The Magistrates Commission only dealt with one application by a Regional Court President to travel abroad in the past 12 months from Regional Court President J Wessels.  She received an invitation by UN: Women And UNFPA In Partnership With UNDP And UNODC To The Global Technical Consultation On The Police And Justice Sector’s Response To Violence Against Women And Girls - Marrakech, 1 to 4 July 2014. 

Travel to and accommodation in Marrakech were carried by the organisers.  

The Magistrates Commission also indicated that Ms Wessels took no delegation with her. There was therefore no expenditure by the Regional Court Presidents on overseas trips



END

 

Reply:

 

 

(1) The Judges Remuneration and Conditions of Employment Act & Regulations, 2001, does not prescribe the number of trips that may be undertaken domestically or internationally and the number, position and status of persons forming part of such delegations. However, Paragraph 8.4.11.5.3.(i) of the Departmental Financial Instructions of the Office of the Chief Justice provides that “official travelling of Judicial Officers to foreign countries must be approved by the Chief Justice”.

In line with the above, the established practice is that the relevant Judge who wishes to travel abroad must first approach the Head of Court with the request. The Head of Court will apply his/her mind and formally agree that the Judge may travel abroad accordingly provided that (1) the allocation of cases onto the court roll will be managed accordingly; and (2) the administration of justice will not be negatively affected. Such permission from the Head of Court as well as the detailed request by the Judge who wishes to travel, are then presented to the Chief Justice for consideration and approval.

2. (a) (i) The following domestic trips (air flights) were undertaken by Judges President and Deputy Judges President from 1 August 2014 to 31 July 2015:

• L Mpati: President of the SCA – 1 trip
• B Waglay: JP – 15 trips
• CT Sangoni: JP – 4 trips
• AS Jappie: JP – 9 trips
• M Molemela: JP – 7 trips
• F Kgomo: JP – 4 trips
• M Leeuw: JP – 1 trip
• M Hlope: JP – 1Trip
• Y Meer: AJP – 9 trips
• M Mojapelo: DJP – 4 trips
• J Traverso: DJP -1 trip
• A Ledwaba: DJP – 1 trip

(ii) No international trips were undertaken by Judges President or Deputy Judges President during the period.

(b) No officials were part of any delegation for any Judge President or Deputy Judge President.



END

Reply:

 (a) I wish to inform the Honourable Member that the South African Law Reform Commission (SALRC) considered sex work in its investigation into Sexual Offences: Adult Prostitution (Project 107). This investigation has now been finalized, and as required in terms of section 7(1) of the South African Law Reform Commission Act, 1973 (Act No 19 of 1973), the report has been submitted to me during July 2015 for my consideration.

(b) I am currently still considering the report and the recommendations contained therein. As soon as I finalize considering the report, further announcements will be made.  

Reply:

(1) The Departments of Justice and Constitutional Development and of Correctional Services, are not responsible for the keeping of criminal records of previous convictions. This is a function of the South African Police Service (SAPS), in particular the Criminal Record Center of the SAPS (CRC). This question should therefore be referred to the Ministry of Police for an answer or input in this regard.

(2) The Department of Justice and Constitutional Development does not have specific information in this regard.

(3) No. (a) to (d) therefore fall away.

Please also find attached a copy of the Parliamentary Question answer No 2615 of the 7th August 2015, where-in the Honourable Member is informed that no pardon has been granted by the President to the person in question, because additional information is still being awaited.

Pardons are submitted for consideration by the President, when the person concerned, does not qualify to have his conviction expunged in terms of the Criminal Procedure Act, 1977. Applications for expungement are submitted to the Director-General of the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development, where a convicted person has been convicted of an offence for which he/ she did not serve a term of direct imprisonment; the conviction happened more than 10 years ago; and he or she has not been found guilty of a sexual offence against a child or a mentally disabled person, which would then mean that such person’s details will be added to the National Register of Sexual Offenders in terms of Chapter 6 of the Criminal Law Amendment (Sexual Offences and Related Matters) Act, 2007 (Act No 32 of 2007).

It is the responsibility of the person applying for a pardon and/or an expungement, to obtain a SAPS Clearance Certificate from the Criminal Record Centre him- or herself, to submit to the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development, for consideration of the expungement, if there was no direct term of imprisonment imposed, after 10 years have passed and the person has not been convicted of a sexual offence against a child or a mentally disabled person. In the latter case, an expungement will not be granted and the only option for removal of a person’s criminal conviction/s, is to apply for a Presidential pardon.

 

Reply:

(a) The National Prosecuting Authority has reported the following numbers of prosecutions for human trafficking during the financial years requested:

1. 2010/11: 1;
2. 2011/12: 1;
3. 2012/13: 3;
4. 2013/14: 1; and
5. 2014/15: 19.

The NPA has added that several cases are currently under investigation and in order not to jeopardise these cases that are sub judice, the NPA is unable to provide any information regarding the said matters.

(b) How many of the specified cases were convictions?

1. 2010/11: 1;
2. 2011/12: 1;
3. 2012/13: 3;
4. 2013/14: 1; and
5. 2014/2015: 7 convictions.

Based on the information available at the time of this response, the NPA is only aware of two additional prosecutions on trafficking which resulted in an acquittal (both in the Western Cape. In the one matter the accused was convicted on minor charges and in the other case, the complainant refused to testify.

Progress in other matters: In eight (8) matters, the cases are partly-heard; in one case, the trial is to commence in October 2015; in one case, the trial date was set on 25 August 2015; and in two cases, bail applications will still be heard.

(c) (i) How many of the specified cases involved female victims?

Statistics regarding the gender of the victim was not captured and are therefore unavailable. However, based on experience, the NPA’s cases involve predominantly female victims.

(ii) What was the nationality of the victims identified in each case?

Statistics regarding the nationality of the victim was not captured and are therefore unavailable.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION AS RECEIVED FROM THE NATIONAL PROSECUTION AUTHORITY:

(a) How many cases of human trafficking was prosecuted in the financial years as indicated:

(i) 2010 – 2011

NAME	PROVINCE / DIVISION	DATE	STATUS
S v Eloff & Another	Free State	2009	CONVICTION – Trafficking in persons for sexual purposes, section 71 of Act 32/2007. Sentenced to 8 years imprisonment suspended for 5 years on conditions.

(ii) 2011 – 2012

NAME	PROVINCE / DIVISION	DATE	STATUS
S v Dos Santos	North Gauteng	2011	CONVICTION - Trafficking in persons for sexual purposes, section 71 of Act 32/2007 (4 charges). Sentenced to life imprisonment.

(iii) 2012 – 2013

NAME	PROVINCE / DIVISION	DATE	STATUS
S v Shembe	Western Cape	2012	CONVICTION - Trafficking in persons for sexual purposes, section 71 of Act 32/2007. Sentenced to 23 years imprisonment.
S v Ntonga & Bell	Eastern Cape	2013	CONVICTION - Trafficking in persons for sexual purposes, section 71 of Act 32/2007. Sentenced to 10 years imprisonment.
S v Gwambe	Mpumalanga	2013	CONVICTION - Trafficking in persons for sexual purposes, section 71 of Act 32/2007. Sentenced to 15 years imprisonment.

(iv) 2013 – 2014

NAME	PROVINCE / DIVISION	DATE	STATUS
S v Jezile	Western Cape	2014	CONVICTION - Trafficking in persons for sexual purposes, section 71 of Act 32/2007 and Rape section 3 of Act 32 / 2007. Sentenced to 22 years imprisonment (conviction and sentence confirmed on appeal).

1. 2014 – 2015

NAME	PROVINCE / DIVISION	DATE	STATUS
S v Allima	KZN	2014	CONVICTION - Trafficking in persons for sexual purposes, section 71 of Act 32/2007. Sentenced to life imprisonment.
S v Simelane	North Gauteng	2014	CONVICTION - Trafficking in persons for sexual purposes, section 71 of Act 32/2007 and Rape section 3 of Act 32/2007. Sentenced to 30 years imprisonment.
S v Mabuza	Mpumalanga	2014	CONVICTION - Trafficking in persons for sexual purposes, section 71 of Act 32/2007 (8 charges). Sentenced to life imprisonment on all 8 charges.
S v Wang	Western Cape	2014	CONVICTION - Trafficking in persons for sexual purposes, section 71 of Act 32/2007. Postponed for sentence.
S v Knoetze	Eastern Cape	2014	CONVICTION – Trafficking in persons for sexual purposes, section 71 of Act 32/2007. Sentenced to 15 years imprisonment.
S v Uche & Others	KZN	2015	CONVICTION - Trafficking in persons for sexual purposes, section 71 of Act 32/2007. Postponed for sentence.
S v Palan & Another	KZN	2015	CONVICTION - Trafficking in persons for sexual purposes, section 71 of Act 32/2007. Sentenced to 10 years imprisonment.
S v Rugnath	KZN	2014	Partly heard
S v Mansaur	KZN	2014	Partly heard
S v Matini & Another	Eastern Cape	2014	Partly heard
S v Gudwana	Western Cape	2014	Partly heard
S v Tiki & Others	Western Cape	2014	Partly heard
S v Wellem & Others	Western Cape	2014	Partly heard
S v Agasi & Others	Western Cape	2014	Partly heard
S v Jooste	Western Cape	2014	Trial to commence in October 2015
S v Zweni	KZN	2015	Partly heard
S v Chijoko & Another	WC	2015	Trial date to be set on 25/08/2015
S v Mbene & Another	WC	2015	For bail application on 27/8/2015
S v Okoye & Others	WC	2015	For bail application on 28/9/2015

Several cases are currently under investigation, in order not to jeopardise these cases that are sub judice, we are unable to provide any information regarding the said matters.

(b) How many of the specified cases were convictions?

See schedule as per paragraph (a) supra. Based on the information available at the time of this response, the NPA is only aware of two additional prosecutions on trafficking which resulted in an acquittal (both in the Western Cape. In the one matter the accused was convicted on minor charges and in the other case, the complainant refused to testify.

(c) (i) How many of the specified cases involved female victims?

Statistics regarding the gender of the victim was not captured and are therefore unavailable. However, based on experience, the NPA’s cases involve predominantly female victims.

(ii) What was the nationality of the victims identified in each case?

Statistics regarding the nationality of the victim was not captured and are therefore unavailable.

Reply:

(a) The SIU has informed me that the following cases are currently being investigated: (1) National and all Provincial Departments of Social Development; (2) North-West Province Municipalities: (aa) Madibeng Local Municipality; (bb) Greater Taung Local Municipality; (cc) Mafikeng Local Municipality; (dd) Ventersdorp Local Municipality; (ee) Dr Kenneth Kaunda District Municipality; (ff) Matlosana Local Municipality; (gg) Maquassi Hills Local Municipality; (hh) Tlokwe Local Municipality; (ii) Ngaka Modiri Molema District Municipality; (jj) Ditsobotla Local Municipality; (kk) Tswaing Local Municipality; (ll) Ramotshere Moiloa Local Municipality; (mm) Ratlou Local Municipality; (nn) Moses Kotane Local Municipality; (oo) Ketlengrivier Local Municipality; (pp) Dr Ruth Mompati District Municipality; (qq) Rustenburg Local Municipality; (rr) Naledi Local Municipality; (ss) Kagisano Local Municipality; (tt) Molopo Local Municipality; (uu) Mamusa Local Municipality; (vv) Lekwa-Teemane Local Municipality; (ww) Bojanala Platinum District Municipality; and (xx) Moretele Local Municipality. (3) Department of Health: Gauteng Province; (4) South African Social Security Agency (SASSA); (5) Department of Public Works; (6) South African Police Service (SAPS); (7) Department of Public Works for the KwaZulu-Natal Province; (8) Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality (TMM): Gauteng Province; (9) Ekhurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality (EMM): Gauteng Province; (10) National Department of Rural Development and Land Reform and its agents; (11) Midvaal Local Municipality: Gauteng Province; (12) Eskom Holdings Ltd; (13) Limpopo Province intervention: (aa) Provincial Treasury; (bb) Department of Health and Social Development; (cc) Department of Roads and Transport; (dd) Department of Education; (ee) Department of Public Works, Limpopo Province. (14) Department of Public Works (Security upgrade at Nkandla); (15) Department of Water Affairs (formerly the Department of Water Affairs and Forestry); (16) National Department of Co-operative Governance and Traditional Affairs (COGTA); (17) Department of Rural Development and Land Reform (formerly known as the Department of Land Affairs) in its national department, its provincial departments, its trading entities and their respective agencies (herein referred to as the DRDLR) and the State Information Technology Agency (PTY) Ltd (herein referred to as SITA); (18) Bushbuckridge Local Municipality: Mpumalanga Province; (19) Department of Communications; (20) USAASA (Universal Service and Access Agency of South Africa); (21) KwaZulu-Natal Provincial Treasury; (22) Vhembe District Municipality; (23) Greater Tubatse Local Municipality; (24) State Information Technology Agency (Pty) Ltd (“SITA”); (25) National Department of Public Works: Prestige Directorate: Western Cape; (26) Department of Labour and the Compensation Fund; (27) National Department of Transport; (28) National Department of Public Works (Leases investigation); (29) Department of Communications; and (30) Eastern Cape Department of Education. (b) The SIU has informed me that the following civil matters are currently before court: (1) The Department of Public Works: The SIU caused summons to be issued out of the High Court at the KwaZulu-Natal local division under case number 6428/2015. The SIU (1st plaintiff) together with the Department of Public Works (2nd plaintiff) is pursuing an action for the recovery of approximately R2.3 million from the contractor as a consequence of an overcharge. The Plaintiffs are also seeking to recover the fees paid to the consultants (approximately R7 million) arising from their failure to carry out their mandate in terms of the contract concluded between the parties. The matter is currently being defended. (2) Department of Public Works (Security upgrade at Nkandla): The SIU instituted civil proceedings against Minenhle Makhanya and another in the High Court (KwaZulu-Natal Division – Pietermaritzburg) under case number 11107/14 in which the SIU is asking the court to order Mr Makhanya to pay approximately R155 million to the Department. This case is defended and on-going. (3) Department of Rural Development and Land Reform (formerly known as the Department of Land Affairs) in its national department, its provincial departments, its trading entities and their respective agencies (herein referred to as the DRDLR) and the State Information Technology Agency (PTY) Ltd (herein referred to as SITA): The SIU instituted civil proceedings against Gijima AST (Pty) Ltd and others in the High Court (Gauteng Division) under case number 88170/14 in which the SIU is asking the court to declare the tender and resulting contract unlawful and void ab initio. This case is defended and on-going. (4) Department of Communications: The Department of Telecommunications and Postal Services and the SIU instituted civil proceedings against Media Corner (Pty) Ltd and others in the High Court (Gauteng Division) under case number 66037/14 in which the Department and the SIU are asking the court to declare the tender and resulting contract unlawful and void ab initio, while also claiming approximately R12.7 million from Media Corner and asking for a type of debating of accounts in respect of the remaining approximately R32.7 million. This case is defended and on-going. (5) USAASA (Universal Service and Access Agency of South Africa): The SIU instituted civil proceedings against Mr Zami Nkosi, USAASA and others in the High Court (Gauteng Division) under case number 43250/14 in which the SIU is asking the court to declare the appointment of Mr Zami Nkosi as the Chief Executive Officer of the USAASA unlawful. This case is defended and on-going.

 

Reply:

(1) I wish to inform the Honourable Member that neither the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development, nor the South African Law Reform Commission, has such pending legislation or research projects, in process.

(2) As the matter relates to international property rights, which are not in the jurisdiction of the Republic of South Africa, I would recommend that the Honourable Member address such question to the Minister of International Relations and Cooperation.

Reply:

(a) Red tape is a collection or sequence of forms and procedures, oppressively complex and time-consuming, required to gain bureaucratic approval for something. In the context of the work of government, officials at junior, middle and senior management level are expected to make decisions aimed at improving service delivery. However it should be noted that officials are only able to fulfill their duties in terms of the requirements of relevant legislation. Often these decisions are complex and could lead to significant discontent amongst stakeholders at various ends of the result of such decisions. It is then currently the norm that such decisions are taken to court for review of the decision by disappointed stakeholders. In order to ensure that complex decisions would be deemed justifiable in a court of law, this requires that such decisions involve more consulting, more processes that verify adequacy, reliability and completeness of information considered, which in turn increases the time taken to reach a decision. This additional involvement in time is to ensure that when a decision is taken, it can be implemented without concern for court processes that may delay implementation.

(b) (i) and (ii), (aa) and (bb), (aaa) the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development:

Specific interventions and systems developed and implemented in the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development to improve the standards of service delivery, include the following:

1. Service delivery champions have been appointed to ensure improvements in their respective areas of responsibility;
2. The review of Service Delivery Models of Branches in the Department with the aim of strengthening the structures responsible for service delivery at the lowest levels;
3. Decentralization of governance structures to regions with Regional Heads to strategically manage service delivery at service point level;
4. Decentralization of operational functions with specific delegations and standard operating procedures and standards of performance to court managers to enable them to run the institution, procure and appoint staff;
5. KHAEDU deployment of senior managers at lower performing service points with the specific mandate to unblock difficulties related to service delivery; and
6. Redesign of processes and policies and deployment of Information Technology solutions to improve time in delivery of services e.g., payment of maintenance.

(b) (i) and (ii), (aa) and (bb), (bbb) Entities reporting to the Minister of Justice and Correctional Services:

Regarding the public entities, Boards and Councils reporting to the Minister of Justice and Correctional Services, such as the Legal Aid Board South Africa, the Debt Collectors Council and the Special Investigation Unit, the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development has members of the department representing the Department liaising with or sitting on such Boards to assist in dealing with blockages, streamlining communication and speeding up processes.

The Council for Debt Collectors has specifically indicated that although no formal systems have been implemented to identify and reduce red tape from the Department, the Council as it reports to the Minister of Justice and Correctional Services, has implemented the following measures:

1. Stringent adherence to the principles as laid out in the King III Governance Report;
2. Drafting and submission of an integrated annual report to Parliament even though there is no legal obligation to do so as the Council does not fall under the Public Finance Management Act; and
3. Implementation of a 7 day turnover period for new registrations that is rigorously monitored.

Reply:

(a) and (b) I wish to inform the Honourable Member that the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development has limited statistical information in relation to the court cases and resultant convictions made in relation to the violent attacks against foreign nationals in 2008 and 2015. The reason for this is that there is no specific crime category prosecuted or recorded in official data bases relating to “violent xenophobic attacks”. Crimes committed in this regard are therefore normally crimes such as assaults or murders where the victims are foreign nationals. These cases are thus recorded as normal crimes in terms of the SAPS CAS system and the court registers. Limited manual recording of such incidents and cases were dealt with during 2008. During 2015 more detailed capturing of statistics are being done by the South African Police Service and the National Prosecution Authority under auspices of the Justice Crime Prevention and Security (JCPS) Cluster and its NATJOINTS Sub-Committee, and this is reported through the Inter-Ministerial Committee (IMC: Migration) dealing with Migration issues..

(i) 2008 incidents:

With regard to the 2008 incidents relating to foreign nationals, the department recorded that arrests led to 597 such cases going to court from May 2008. To monitor what happened to these cases, an investigation at the end of October 2009, revealed that 218 of these cases were withdrawn (for various reasons, but in many instances because the witnesses became missing or left the country), 159 of these cases were finalised with a verdict (98 guilty, 61 not guilty), 9 cases were still partly-heard, 75 cases were still to be tried and in 77 cases, further investigation was still being finalised, whilst 27 warrants of arrest were also issued. These matters were part of the normal court rolls at that stage and no further specific monitoring records were kept in relation to these matters.

(ii) 2015 incidents:

According to an IMC press release in May 2015, it was indicated that there were eighty-seven (87) cases, eighty-three (83) of which were postponed for further investigation and four (4) that had been finalized. Of this, three cases resulted in convictions and one case was finalized through Alternative Dispute Resolution Mechanism (mediation).

As at the end of July 2015, the statistics changed as follows: there were a total of a hundred and ten (110) such cases, of which seven (7) had been withdrawn or struck off the roll, six (6) had been finalized and ninety-seven (97) had not yet been finalized. Of the six (6) cases finalized, there were four (4) convictions, one (1) nolle prosequi (decision not to prosecute) and one (1) finalized through Alternative Dispute Resolution Mechanism (mediation).

It can be noted that the IMC: Immigration on a regular basis briefs the country on these issues through media briefings. A further media briefing indicating progress in dealing with the issues relating to Foreign Nationals, including the cases finalized, will follow soon (on 22 August 2015).

Background information:

In terms of the breakdown of the 2008 incidents, the 597 cases can be disaggregated per crime category (charges) as follows:

Public Violence	112
Housebreaking	107
Attempted robbery/robbery	96
Murder / attempted murder	62
Theft	58
Malicious Damage to Property	36
Assault/ GBH	31
Intimidation	22
Armed robbery	22
House robbery	11
Arson	9
Rape / attempted rape	8
Business robbery	6
Other crimes	17
Total	597

Reply:

In order to provide a comprehensive response, the Department has maintained its policy of not allowing unauthorised communication devices which give the use primary access to such applications as Facebook, Twitter etc.

The Department continues to take various steps to prevent or reduce the use of unauthorized communication devices within Correctional Centres. These steps include the following:

• The launching of a Back-2-Basics security campaign aimed at reasserting the importance of basic security measures and competencies such as searching of persons and goods.

• The searching of inmate cells and belongings sporadically (at extraordinary times) to find and remove unauthorized communication devices that may have entered the Correctional facilities.

• The installation of cell-phone detection systems in various Correctional Centres to assist officials in the identification and removal of unauthorized communication devices. Cell-phone detection systems are currently in the process of being installed at 39 Correctional Centres.

• The Department is also in the process of installing 14 body scanners at 7 Correctional Centres to further assist officials.

• The Department has initiated a process of engagement with the Independent Communications Authority of South Africa (ICASA) to explore various technical and/or legal solutions – including but not limited to cell-phone jamming.

• The DCS is part of an inter-departmental process exploring technical counter-measures in part responding to gangs as a security threat group. This is a conscious effort to partner with other state law enforcement agencies in finding sustainable solutions to the holistic challenges (including integrity management of personnel).

Reply:

I wish to inform the Honourable Member that I have been informed by the National Prosecuting Authority that:

1. 
   The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), South Gauteng indicates that Sandton CAS 63/3/2012 is a case involving theft (shoplifting) of lingerie valued at R99.00 at Woolworths Store in Sandton City on 2 March 2012 committed by a female student, aged 26 years, who appeared in court on 5 March 2012 and the matter was postponed to 20 March 2012. It is however inconceivable that this is a matter that the DA is referring to or interested in. It would assist if the Honourable member of the Democratic Alliance provides more details about the docket the Honourable member is referring to.The Serious and Commercial Crimes Unit (SCCU) Johannesburg Office only dealt with and declined to prosecute in Sandton CAS 1242/09/2010. The Special Director SCCU and Director of Public Prosecutions, Gauteng, are currently engaging in evaluating the request to review the said decision declining to prosecute in respect of Sandton CAS 1242/09/2010 where the complainant in the matter was Mr Sheldon Chellakooty and not the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI). CAS number 63/03/2012 was never referred to the SCCU.
2. See response in (1) above.
3. The findings of the Auditor-General can be obtained from his office. These findings were specifically referred to by the suspect in Sandton CAS 1242/09/2010.
4. The SCCU Johannesburg office in particular has not been contacted.

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 and Deputy Minister of Correctional Services did not travel to China during 2014-2015; and

(c) I have been informed that no officials from all the departments, travelled to China during the 2014-15 financial year.

(i) and (ii) therefore fall away.

Reply:

1. 39 new Small Claims Courts were established during the 2014-2015 financial year:

Mitchells Plain (WC), Bergville (KZN), Clanwilliam (WC), Boshof (FS), Herschel (EC), Fouriesburg (FS), Lions River (KZN), Polela (KZN), Phalaborwa (LP), Stilfontein (NW), Glen Grey (EC), Christiana (NW), Calitzdorp (WC), Goodwood (WC), Kuils River (WC), Pearston (EC), Namakgale (LP), Adelaide (EC), Bedford (EC), Wellington (WC), Impendle (KZN), Murraysburg (WC), Hopefield (WC), Mount Ayliff (EC), Heidelberg (WC), Uniondale (WC), Lady Grey (EC), Nkandla (KZN), Pofadder (NC), Piketberg (WC), Mapumulo (KZN), Mtunzini (KZN), Postmasburg (NC), Hanover (NC), Molteno (EC), Hay (NC), Tseki (FS), Laingsburg (WC) and Prince Albert (WC)

30 new Small Claims Courts were established from 1 April 2013 to 31 March 2014:

Ngotshe (KZN), Elliot (EC), Msinga (KZN), Madikwe (NW), Peddie (EC), Middledrift (EC), Mooi River (KZN), Clocolan (FS), Camperdown (KZN), KwaMhlanga (MP), Mbibana (MP), Mdutjana (MP), St Marks (EC), Mutale (LP), Atteridgeville (GP), Secunda (MP), Dzanani (LP), Vanrhynsdorp (WC), Bultfontein (FS), Williston (NC), Sebokeng (GP), Melmoth (KZN), Reitz (FS), Nqutu (KZN), Hennenman (FS), Virginia (FS), Ventersburg (FS) Sasolburg (FS), Tsakane (GP) and Vuwani (LP)

14 new Small Claims Courts have been established since 1 April 2015:

Babanango (KZN), Libode (EC), Tabankulu (EC), Wodehouse (EC), Indwe (EC), Tsolo (EC), Qumbu (EC), Simon’s Town (WC), Middelburg (EC), Sterkstroom (EC), Tiyani (LP), Barkly East (EC), Kakamas (NC) and Flagstaff (EC)

2. The statistics for the new 39 Small Claims Courts is not yet readily available on the department’s ICMS system which is our main statistics information source as these courts are still being assisted to get registered and trained to use the system. However the 2014/15 national stats for the SCC were as follows:

Matters Finalized - Broken down into Regions:

Regions	Q1	Q2	Q3	Q4	Grand Total	Amount	Average of Days : Registration to Finalisation Date	Average of Days: First Hearing Date to Finalization date
Eastern Cape	596	626	603	655	2480	R 10 609 170.11	70.48	52.97
Free State	267	205	252	279	1003	R 2 988 213.13	56.43	35.08
Gauteng	2711	2940	2217	2430	10298	R 53 338 021.86	39.48	19.87
Kwazulu Natal	870	901	809	816	3396	R 19 196 151.86	111.63	68.89
Limpopo	845	947	825	902	3519	R 12 391 156.03	87.96	60.12
Mpumalanga	419	571	573	374	1937	R 8 626 175.45	83.65	56.41
North West	671	585	497	361	2114	R 8 143 952.28	87.20	37.85
Northern Cape	177	99	85	90	451	R 1 814 831.20	45.93	20.79
Western Cape	740	901	801	890	3332	R 19 972 283.98	77.20	27.56
Grand Total	7296	7775	6662	6797	28530	R 137 079 955.90	68.38

Matters Finalized - Broken down into Outcomes:

Outcomes	Q1	Q2	Q3	Q4	Grand Total	%
Absolution	131	155	100	143	529	2%
Case Dismissed	559	664	529	500	2252	8%
Case Struck of Roll	2380	2579	2283	2387	9629	34%
Case Withdrawn	81	98	77	103	359	1%
Default Judgement	1316	1284	1150	1526	5276	18%
Judgement Granted	2435	2604	2150	1859	9048	32%
Out of Court Settlement	317	329	272	229	1147	4%
Postponed	77	61	101	46	285	1%
Rescission Granted		1		4	5	0.02%
Grand Total	7296	7775	6662	6797	28530	100%

Reply:

The Minister wishes to inform the Honorable member that  at the time the original genocide warrant was issued by the International Criminal Court in July 2010 against President Al Bashir, the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development received confirmation from the Department of International Relations and Cooperation (DIRCO) that the second warrant relating to genocide charge and accompanying statements had been dispatched but that it had not been received at the Department for processing.

Following the receipt of this Parliamentary question, the Department has since forwarded a request to DIRCO urging them to obtain confirmation from South Africa’s Mission in The Hague of the specific date upon which the  original genocide warrant was transmitted to DIRCO for onward transmission to DOJCD. The Department therefore awaits a response in this regard from our Mission in The Hague.

As there had been difficulty locating the whereabouts of the original genocide warrant, the Magistrate’s Court for the District of Pretoria has not as yet been seized with the task of endorsing and ultimately issuing the second warrant against President Al Bashir for crimes of genocide for which he has been indicted by the International Criminal Court on 12 July 2010.

Reply:

The Minister wishes to inform the Honorable member that:

(a) The Department of Justice and Constitutional Development has no instance where the remainder of any employee’s contract was paid out before the contractually stipulated date of termination of the contract since the 2008-09 financial year to date.

(b) (i) Yes, out of the entities reporting to the Minister of Justice and Correctional Services, the National Prosecuting Authority has paid out employee contracts before the contractually stipulated date of termination of the contract. The details are as follows:

(bb) (i) Payout Amount	(ii) To Whom	(iii) Reason for early termination
R7,500,000	Mr Vusi Pikoli, NDPP 2005 – 2009	Payment made as a result of settlement agreements reached between the NDPP and the Presidency.
R17,357,233	Mr Mxolisi Nxasana, NDPP 2013 – 2015	Payment made as a result of settlement agreements reached between the NDPP and the Presidency.

(b) (ii)Legal Aid SA, the Office of the Chief Justice and the Special Investigating Unit have confirmed that there were no employees that were paid out their contract before the contractually stipulated date of termination of the contract.

The Department of Correctional Services or its entities does not have any employees whose contracts were terminated before the expiry of such contracts, and no paid outs made for the remainder of their contracts.

The Office of the Chief Justice was proclaimed as a National Department in 2010. From 2010 to 2015, the Office of the Chief Justice has not paid out the remainder of any employees’ contract before the contractually stipulated date of termination of their contracts.

Reply:

1. (a) It is confirmed that 2 813 officials are involved in the administration of Third Party Funds at courts throughout the country.

(b) A total of 354 of these officials have been vetted during the previous financial year (2014/15).

(2) The current registered receivables for Third Party Funds for the financial years under question include R 3, 160, 615.80 registered in the 2012/13 financial year (0.05% of the value of all transactions that occurred during the year), R 7, 804, 641.23 registered in the 2013/14 financial year (0.13% of the value of all transactions that occurred during the year) and R 4, 360, 332.81 registered in the 2014/15 financial year (0.07% of the value of all transactions that occurred during the year). These receivables relate to dishonored cheques, maintenance overpayments and shortages. Shortages include amounts for theft, fraud, system errors and break-ins. Shortages account in general for 93% of receivables at financial year end. The receivables registered are systematically being investigated and finalized as per the Treasury Regulations and Departmental Prescripts. After such investigation should the amounts not be recovered, the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development stands as security should amounts be written-off and as such these activities have no impact on maintenance being paid to the beneficiaries. When write-offs occur within the ambit of the Treasury Regulations and Departmental prescripts, it would be appropriately reflected in the financial statements of the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development and audited as appropriate.

The department established the following controls to limit and prevent shortages in TPF in future:

1. Daily reconciliation of monies at court level being submitted electronically for review by the regional supervisory staff;
2. Weekly review of reconciliations submitted by National Office;
3. Follow-up on corrective measures being implemented on a weekly basis by National Office;
4. Consistent national effort with SITA to address system errors on JDAS that has led to a clear understanding of the system challenges that were 95% resolved at the financial year end of 2014/15 and will be finalized in the 2015/16 financial year;
5. Physical Security and Programmatic Security to prevent Cyber Crime;
6. Appropriate training at grass-roots level and supervisory level; and
7. Appointment of financial technically proficient staff that can review reconciliations and fulfill oversight functions at the required levels.

3) The following numbers of officials were subjected to disciplinary processes as a result of the specified losses for the amounts stated for each financial year in question. Please take note that such disciplinary processes may have taken place in different financial years as to when the actual registration of the receivables occurred.

FINANCIAL YEAR	(a) NUMBER OF OFFICIALS	(b) AMOUNT (R)
2012/2013	87	2, 525, 622.45
2013/2014	56	1, 138, 621.01
2014/2015	43	1, 839, 635.60
April & May 2015	5	769, 807.78

Reply:

1. The Minister of Justice and Correctional Services wishes the Honourable member to know that there are a total of 25 Family Advocate Offices countrywide. A full description of the services are as follows:

Name of Office	Location	Number of Social Workers dealing with custody matters
Family Advocate Pretoria	4th Floor, Die Meent Building, c/o Thabo Sehume & Pretorius Streets	12
Family Advocate Johannesburg	94 Pritchard Street, 13th Floor, Schreiner Chambers, Johannesburg	10
Family Advocate Palm Ridge	Palm Ridge Magistrate’s Court	1
Family Advocate Vossman	Vossman Magistrate’s Court	2
Family Advocate Nelspruit	No 3 Marloth Street, Nelspruit	7
Family Advocate Polokwane	Wyndom park Building, 23 Rabie Street, Polokwane	7
Family Advocate Sibasa	Thohoyandou Magistrate’s Court	2
Family Advocate Mafikeng	461/805 Steve Biko Drive, Unit 2, Mmabatho	4
Family Advocate Rustenburg	Rustenburg Magistrate’s Court	1
Family Advocate Kimberley	5th Floor, New Public Building (Magistrate Court), c/o Knight & Stead Street, Kimberley	7
Family Advocate Upington	Upington Magistrate’s Court	2
Family Advocate Durban	15th Floor Maritime House, 143 Grove Street Durban	10
Family Advocate Pietermaritzburg	Pietermaritzburg Magistrate’s Court	6
Family Advocate New Castle	New Castle Magistrate’s Court	3
Family Advocate Ntuzuma	Ntuzuma Magistrate’s Court	1
Family Advocate Cape Town	55 Union Castle Building, 10th Floor ,c/o House Street & St George’s Mall, Cape Town	10
Family Advocate George	Batleur Park Building, Cnr Cathedral & Cradock Street, George	3
Family Advocate Worcester	67 High Street, Worcester	2
Family Advocate Mitchells Plein	Mitchells Plein Magistrate’s Court	1
Family Advocate Port Elizabeth	No. 1 Bird Street, Central, Port Elizabeth	10
Family Advocate East London	29 St Peters Road , Southernwood, East London	4
Family Advocate Graaff Reinett	Graaff Reinett Magistrate’s Court	3
Family Advocate Mthatha	29 St Peters Road , Southernwood, East London	2
Family Advocate Bloemfontein	163 A Nelson Mandela Drive, 2nd Floor Sanlam Building, Bloemfontein	8
Family Advocate Welkom	Welkom Magistrate’s Court	2

2. (a) The office of the Family Advocate does not rely on external Welfare Organisations for Custody matters but obtains collateral reports from the following organisations when necessary:

PROVINCE	ORGANISATIONS
LIMPOPO	Child Welfare Suid Afrikaanse Vroue Federasie Huis Maroela Families South Africa (FAMSA)
GAUTENG	Department of Social Development
MPUMALANGA	N. A.
NORTH WEST	Mental Health Suid Afrikaanse Vroue Federasie Child Welfare SA
EASTERN CAPE	Families South Africa (FAMSA) Afrikaanse Christelike Vrouevereniging( ACVV) Christelike Maatskaplike Raad (CMR) Department of Social Development
FREE STATE	Afrikaanse Christelike Vrouevereniging( ACVV) Christelike Maatskaplike Raad (CMR) Department of Social Development
WESTERN CAPE	Child Welfare Badisa Afrikaanse Christelike Vrouevereniging (ACVV) CMC Ukakhanya Parent Centre Child Line Mosaic Litha labantu Valley development projects
NORTHERN CAPE	Families South Africa (FAMSA) Department of Social Development Child Welfare NG Welsyn Afrikaanse Christelike Vrouevereniging (ACVV) South African National Council on Alcoholism & Drug Dependence (SANCA)

2. (b) No subsidies are paid out to welfare organisations by the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development.

Reply:

The Office for Witness Protection (OWP) is an independent covert office and is a sub-programme of the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development. Its mandate is derived from the Witness Protection Act 112 of 1998.

Witness protection, in terms of the Witness Protection Act, is not a police or prosecution function; therefore the honourable Minister of Police is not the correct minister to respond to the said questions (as in PQ 2395).

Regarding the question posed to the Minister of Justice and Correctional Services, I wish to inform the Honorable member as follows:               

1. For the financial periods 2001/02 up to 2014/15 and current financial year up to date, no witness or their related person/s were attacked, threatened or killed while in the programme.
2. Falls away.
3. Falls away.

Reply:

(1)(a)&(b) Yes, the Department is / has taken various steps to prevent or reduce the use of unauthorized communication devices within Correctional Centres. These steps include the following:

• The launching of a Back-2-Basics security campaign aimed at reasserting the importance of basic security measures and competencies such as searching of persons and goods.

• As part of broader engagements, the Department is part of an inter-departmental process exploring technical counter-measures in part response to gangs as a security threat group. This is a conscious effort to partner with other state law enforcement agencies in finding sustainable solutions to the holistic challenges (including integrity management of personnel).

• The searching of inmate cells and belongings at irregular (extraordinary) times to find and remove unauthorized communication devices that may have entered the Correctional facilities.

• The installation of cell phone detection systems in various Correctional Centres to assist officials in the identification and removing of unauthorized communication devices. Cell phone detection systems have been installed (or are currently in the process of being installed) at 39 Correctional Centres.
• The Department is also in the process of installing 14 Body Scanners at 7 Correctional Centres to further assist officials.
• The Department has initiated a process of engagement with the Independent Communications Authority of South Africa (ICASA) to explore various technical and/or legal solutions – including but not limited to cellphone jamming.

(2)&(3) In response to questions 2 and 3 the following information is provided in table format:

(2)How many unauthorised communication devices have been confiscated from:	(i)(aa) 200910,	(i)(bb) 201011	(i)(cc) 201112,	(i)(dd) 201213	(i)(ee) 201314	(i)(ff) 201415	(ii)1 April 2015 up to 31 May 2015
2(a) Remand detainees	2899	4276	7238	10399	9394	13119	2498
3(a)(i) Type and quantity of communication devices confiscated
Cell phones	1712	2908	4808	6722	6167	8482	1693
SIM Cards	1187	1368	2422	3665	3214	4616	792
DSTV Walker device	0	0	0	2	2	5	0
Chargers	0	0	8	10	10	12	13
Cell phone watch	0	0	0	0	0	1	0
Memory cards	0	0	0	0	1	2	0
Memory sticks (usb)	0	0		0	0	1	0
2(b) Convicted Inmates	1191	2865	5479	7594	11976	15482	4003
3(a)(ii) Type and quantity of communication devices confiscated
Cell phones	767	2071	3614	5227	8070	9447	2430
SIM Cards	346	673	1677	2100	3395	5486	1475
DSTV Walker device	0	0	0	1	11	4	2
Chargers	0	0	0	0	8	28	3
Cell phone watch	0	1	0	0	0	0	0
Memory sticks	3	8	11	4	6	3	3
Memory cards	72	99	173	259	475	486	89
Cellphone battery	0	0	0	0	4	7	0
Modem	3	3	4	3	3	2	1
Drifter	0	0	0	0	3	19	0
Bank cards	0	10	0	0	0	0	0
Hard drive	0	0	0	0	1	0	0

Reply:

(a) Yes.

(b) Yes.

2014 / 2015 Financial year:

The Chief Justice of the Republic of South Africa is, in accordance with section 165 of the Constitution, the Head of the Judiciary, an independent arm of the State and by virtue of his position, receives invitations from various international judicial bodies which he sometimes has to honour. Additionally, the Chief Justice is also one of the Vice-Presidents of the Conference of Constitutional Jurisdictions of Africa, a body comprising 34 members of Constitutional Courts and Constitutional Councils in Africa, established to promote constitutional justice within the Continent and responsible for ensuring compliance with the Constitution. He is also a member of the Southern African Chief Justices’ Forum, a body comprising of all the Chief Justices in the Southern and East Africa intended to deal with issues affecting the Judiciary in the SADC region. The Constitutional Court of the Republic of South Africa is also a member of the World Conference on Constitutional Justice comprising of 71 Constitutional Courts, Councils and Supreme Courts, with the aim of promoting constitutional justice.

(i) Turkey

In April 2014, the Chief Justice attended the 2nd Congress of the Asian Constitutional Courts and Equivalent Institutions, and the 52nd Anniversary of the Constitutional Court of Turkey, in his capacity as the Vice-President of the Conference of Constitutional Jurisdictions of Africa which was held in Instanbul, Turkey, at the invitation of the President of the Turkish Constitutional Court. The Chief Justice gave a speech at the conference and also chaired a session on “The Role of the Constitutional and Supreme Courts in the Protection of Constitutional Order”.

(ii) (aa) Four.

(bb) Chief Justice’s Spouse; Acting Head: Judicial Policy, Research and JSC; Acting Director: Executive Support Services; and the Security Coordinator.

(i) Nigeria

In July 2014, the Chief Justice attended and addressed a Judicial Reforms Conference at the invitation of the President of the Nigerian Bar Association which was held in Abuja, Nigeria.

(ii) (aa) Five.

(bb) Chief Justice’s Spouse; Acting Head: Judicial Policy, Research and JSC; Director: Executive Support Services; Executive Personal Assistant to the Chief Justice; and the Security Coordinator.

(i) Zambia

In September 2014, the Chief Justice attended the Annual General Meeting of the Southern African Chief Justices’ Forum at the invitation of the acting Chief Justice of Zambia.

(ii) (aa) Four.

(bb) Chief Justice’s Spouse; Acting Head: Judicial Policy, Research and JSC; Director: Executive Support Services; and the Protocol Coordinator.

(i) South Korea

In September 2014, the Chief Justice attended the 3rd Congress of the World Conference on Constitutional Justice of which the Constitutional Court of the Republic of South Africa is a member, at the invitation of the President of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of South Korea and the President of the Venice Commission. The Chief Justice chaired a session and gave remarks on “Constitutional Instruments Enhancing / Dealing with / for Social Integration.

1. (aa) Four.

(bb) Chief Justice’s Spouse; Acting Head: Judicial Policy, Research and JSC; Director: Executive Support Services; and the Security Coordinator.

(i) United Kingdom

In October 2014, the Chief Justice attended the Opening of the Legal Year in England and Wales at the invitation of the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice of the Ministry of Justice of the United Kingdom.

1. (aa) Four.

(bb) Chief Justice’s Spouse; Acting Head: Judicial Policy, Research and JSC; Director: Executive Support Services; and the Security Coordinator.

(i) Singapore

In October 2014, the Chief Justice went to Singapore and delivered a Lecture on “Twenty Years of the South African Constitution – Origins, Aspirations and Delivery” to the Singapore Academy of Law at the invitation of the Chief Justice of Singapore and President of the Singapore Academy of Law. The Office of the Chief Justice in Singapore paid for the air travel and accommodation for the Chief Justice of the Republic of South Africa and his Spouse.

1. (aa) Four.

(bb) Chief Justice’s Spouse; Director: Executive Support Services; Executive Personal Assistant; and the Security Coordinator.

(i) Swaziland

In November 2014, the Chief Justice was requested by the Executive Committee of the SADC Lawyers Association, International Commission of Jurists and the Justices of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of South Africa to discuss concerns regarding the Swaziland Judiciary.

1. (aa) Two.

(bb) Director: Executive Support Services and the Security Coordinator.

(i) Mozambique

In February 2015, the Chief Justice attended the Fifth Session of the Executive Bureau of the Conference of Constitutional Jurisdictions of Africa (CCJA) as Vice President of the CCJA, at the invitation of the President of the CCJA.

1. (aa) Four.

(bb) Chief Justice’s Spouse; Acting Head: Judicial Policy, Research and JSC; Director: Executive Support Services and the Security Coordinator.

(i) United Kingdom

In February 2015, the Chief Justice attended and addressed the Global Law Summit marking the 800th Anniversary of the Magna Carta at the invitation of the Ministry of Justice of the United Kingdom.

1. (aa) Three

(bb) Director: Executive Support Services; Protocol Coordinator; the Security Coordinator.

The following is applicable to all the official visits abroad for the 2014 / 2015 financial year as listed above:

 

1. (aa) The Director-General of the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development, in consultation with the Secretary-General of the Office of the Chief Justice, approved that the relevant officials may use air travel in business class to render the required in transit close proximity support to the Chief Justice as provided for in paragraph 3.2 of the Handbook for Members of the Executive and Presiding Officers, the “Ministerial handbook”. The Office of the Chief Justice uses the Ministerial Handbook as a guide in the absence of an approved handbook for the Judiciary. The referred paragraph stipulates as follows: “In cases where Members perform official functions by virtue of their office, and where this is in their opinion warranted, a member (or members, as the nature of the official duty prescribe) of the Private Office staff may accompany them and stay in the same hostelry and travel in the same class at Government expense”.

(bb) To enable the members of the delegation to render close proximity support to the Chief Justice whilst in the foreign country and in keeping with the provisions of paragraph 3.2 of the Ministerial handbook as quoted in paragraph (iii) (aa) above, the Director-General of the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development, in consultation with the Secretary-General of the Office of the Chief Justice, approved that the delegation use the same accommodation as the Chief Justice.

2015 / 2016 Financial year

(i) Republic of Gabon

In May 2015, the Chief Justice attended the Third Congress of the Conference of Constitutional Jurisdictions of Africa (CCJA) in his capacity as Vice President of the CCJA, at the invitation of the President of the CCJA. The Chief Justice chaired a session on the “The Synthesis of Responses to the Questionnaire by the Anglophone Constitutional Courts and Councils.”

1. (aa) Four.

(bb) Chief Justice’s Spouse; Acting Head: Judicial Policy, Research and JSC; Director: Executive Support Services; and the Security Coordinator.

1. (aa) The Secretary-General of the Office of the Chief Justice, approved that the relevant officials may use air travel in business class to render the required in transit close proximity support to the Chief Justice as provided for in paragraph 3.2 of the Handbook for Members of the Executive and Presiding Officers, the “Ministerial handbook”. The Office of the Chief Justice uses the Ministerial Handbook as a guide in the absence of an approved handbook for the Judiciary. The referred paragraph stipulates as follows: “In cases where Members perform official functions by virtue of their office, and where this is in their opinion warranted, a member (or members, as the nature of the official duty prescribe) of the Private Office staff may accompany them and stay in the same hostelry and travel in the same class at Government expense”.

(bb) To enable the members of the delegation to render close proximity support to the Chief Justice whilst in the foreign country and in keeping with the provisions of paragraph 3.2 of the Ministerial handbook as quoted in paragraph (iii) (aa) above, the Secretary-General of the Office of the Chief Justice, approved that the delegation use the same accommodation as the Chief Justice.

Reply:

Yes, the country’s system of rehabilitation of offenders is contributing positively in the war against crime. The Department’s philosophy of corrections is based on the ideals contained in the South African Constitution where it is stated that all South Africans should contribute to maintaining and protecting a just, peaceful and safe society in our country. There are thus inherent in the correctional system inter alia two obligations that the Department of Correctional Services (DCS) strives to adhere to, viz. the protection of society and creating opportunities for the correcting of offending behaviour and development and care of offenders.

Rehabilitation consists of various programmes, interventions and services to inmates in correctional centres as well as community corrections. These include amongst others, correctional programmes, social work services, psychological services, skills development and training, education, health care services, etc. Services to sentenced offenders are based on a comprehensive assessment as contained in their individual Correctional Sentence Plans (CSPs).

Rehabilitation services are geared to address individual needs as well as the offending behaviour and other factors such as substance abuse that might have contributed to committing of a crime. While the department is confident that this holistic approach contributes to the war against crime, we cannot wage this war alone. The department in its efforts to address offending behaviour and prevent re-offending needs the continued partnership with other government departments as well as civil society. While the offenders serve their sentence the department uses all its available resources to bring about a changed mind-set, while also developing skills and improving the educational levels, in an effort to release people with a greater sense of responsibility and better prospects to be law abiding. However, it is imperative that immediate families and society at large keep in contact with offenders and support them while being incarcerated, but more importantly upon their release from DCS facilities. This continued support would go a long way in addressing the tendency to fall back into crime due to lack of support, unemployment and substance abuse. Some of our programmes even consist of relapse prevention and coping plans to assist sentenced offenders coping with the challenges they are faced with upon release.

In addition and to assist in objectively establishing the impact of our rehabilitation efforts, we have partnered with University of South Africa (UNISA) who is currently busy with research to determine the impact of some of our rehabilitation programmes in Gauteng. This is an initial pilot phase. The results of this pilot will determine future impact research.

The department has developed clear targets for all our services, programmes and interventions to ensure participation of offenders both in our centres and within the community corrections system.

Through sport, recreation, arts, culture and library programmes and services, the department is assisting in the preparation of offenders for release, employment and self‐sufficiency. These programmes are structured and coordinated to be geared towards building and supporting self‐sufficiency and necessary for reducing the likelihood of offenders becoming involved in criminal activities.

The provisioning of Skills Development Programmes is aimed at reducing recidivism by ensuring that offenders are provided with Skills programmes that will assist them not only in the job market but also to create employment opportunities for themselves. The Department of Correctional Services is also partnering with the external service providers and government departments e.g. Department of Higher Education and Training (DHET), in ensuring that the programmes offered are accredited by the Sector Education and Training Authorities (SETA’s). Between October 2014 and March 2015, 1732 offenders were trained on different accredited trade related programmes e.g. furniture making, electrical, upholstery, building and plastering etc. These programmes were funded from by DHET through the National Skills Fund (NSF).

The work opportunities that are provided to offenders as part of offender rehabilitation in the Departmental Production Workshops and Agriculture/farms do contribute positively in the war against crime. The Departmental Production Workshops and Agriculture/

farms, provide the following to rehabilitate offenders and to contribute positively in the war against crime:

• Opportunity for skills utilization and skills development, as well as work opportunities in the Departmental Production Workshops and Agriculture/farms.

The Department has 21 farms (mix farming-both animal and plant production) and 96 small sites (for vegetable and fruit production), as well as 19 textile workshops, 10 wood- and 10 steel workshops, furthermore there are 6 bakeries nationally, and one (1) shoe factory.

The offenders in the Departmental Production Workshops and Agriculture/farms are exposed to various technical fields, viz.:

• Production Workshops: wood machining, cabinet making, wood polishing, upholstery, sheet metal working, welding, fitting and turning, spray painting, shoe manufacturing, clothing manufacturing and textile machine mechanics as well as baking (bread baking).

• Agriculture/farming: vegetable, fruits, piggery, beef, dairy, agronomy, broiler/chicken production, layers/egg production, sheep and goats farming, abattoir operation/butcher, agro-processing, tractor as well as equipment operation.

The technical skills that are imparted to offenders in the Departmental Production Workshops and Agriculture/farms empower the offenders with technical knowledge, through which, upon their release, offenders can be employable and or create job opportunities, furthermore they can be self-sustained.

As part of offender rehabilitation, during 2014/2015 financial year, on average 1559 of offenders have worked in Production Workshops per day, meanwhile in Agriculture 3275 of offenders have worked per day, thus acquiring various technical skills in Production Workshops and Agriculture.

Education and participation in educational programmes is central in the department’s approach to provide opportunities for personal development of offenders as part of the rehabilitation process.

The Department is currently focused on the strengthening of the registered schools to ensure compliance to Department of Basic Education (DBE) policies and standards and to address the pass rate of the grade 12 learners. The Department reached the desired outcome of the establishment of 14 full time schools by 2014. The expansion and increase of the number of full time schools will be considered after all the currently registered schools have complied with the DBE Policies and Regulations. A Compulsory Education Task Team was established to ensure that all offenders without a qualification equal to Grade 9 or Adult Education and Training (AET) Level 4 are enrolled in the education programme. In 2015 participation of offenders in all the available education programmes stands at 16 444.

Acknowledging the efforts by the DCS in the rehabilitation of offenders, one should also acknowledge that no guarantee can be given that an ex-offender will not reoffend, due to various external factors that are beyond the control of DCS, e.g. lack of support from family and community, poverty, unemployment, etc.

The South African Department of Correctional Services has taken a deliberate and conscious decision to put rehabilitation at the center of all its activities in order to ensure that ex-offenders return to society as law-abiding and self-supporting individuals. In this process the Department is aware of the fact that corrections is a societal responsibility, therefore the Department is working very closely with civil society organizations and other government departments in its rehabilitation efforts.

Achievements

• There is a notable increase in parolee and probationer compliance levels in South Africa. Of the 71, 623 Daily average community corrections caseload, 51 634 are parolees and 18 545 probationers, whose compliance levels are at 98% and 95% respectively. This was done through the establishment of community corrections satellite offices as well as service points managed in consultation with stakeholders. These interventions help build credibility and public trust in the system increasing more non-custodial sentencing by the judiciary.

• The introduction of the innovative Electronic Monitoring System which was launched in July 2014 marked another milestone in the modernisation of correctional services. Since its rollout, cumulatively 1009 people were tagged and currently 604 persons are monitored by this system. Electronic Monitoring System has enabled the department to effectively track offenders on 24-7-365 basis. During the 2015/16 financial year at least 1000 people can be tagged at any given time.

• Major strides were made in advancing victim participation in the parole system in line with Criminal Procedure Act, 1977 and Correctional Services Act, 1998, which provide a framework for consultation of victims of crime in parole considerations. The department is committed to ensuring effective social reintegration with more involvement and participation by victims, families and communities.

• Significant progress was made in championing the implementation of restorative justice model as an integral part of broadening access to justice and enhancing the criminal justice range. In order to improve victim and community participation at various stages of corrections. The Department introduced the victim offender mediation and dialogue, thus far 1541 victims and 3738 offenders have participated in these restorative justice initiatives in the last financial year alone.

• DCS has made concerted efforts to explore a possibility of reducing the period of criminal record for ex-offenders particularly for minor and non-violent cases as part of enhancing rehabilitation and reintegration of offenders into their respective communities as productive and law-abiding citizens.

 

• DCS has made courageous efforts to introduce a concept of Halfway House in 2012 in order to enhance social reintegration of offenders and to reunite offenders with their families especially those who did not have support systems at their time of release from the correctional centre. There are seven (7) halfway houses which have established through partnerships. These include the following :

REGION	HALFWAY HOUSE	NON PROFIT ORGANIZATION
Gauteng	Naturena	House of Glory
Eastern Cape	Vezokuhle	Vezokuhle Youth Development Project
LMN	Lehae la Batho	New Life After Prison
	Klerksdorp	Dream Team Foundation
	XILEMBENI	Nomasojabula
Western Cape	Beauty for Ashes	Beauty for Ashes
	Realistic	Realistic

• Halfway houses have contributed positively towards minimizing chances of re-offending and reduction on overcrowding in correctional centres. The total numbers of eighty four (84) residents were successfully reintegrated. The majority of offenders who went through halfway houses were assisted to find permanent employment and others have started their own businesses through the assistance from Non-Governmental Organisations.

• Greater strides were made with regard to building partnerships with academic institutions to use learners from these institutions to ensure that there is sufficient capacity to conduct profiles of community of origin of offenders. The provision of community profiles will effectively assist the Department to identify needs and risks of offenders who are due to return those particular communities and to guide services and interventions targeting offender behaviour. The profiles of community of origin of offenders are the key indicators of rehabilitation and successful reintegration of offenders

• DCS has partnered with state agencies and departments, Non-Profit Organisations, academic institutions, Non-Governmental Organisations, and other relevant external stakeholders to broaden the scope and spread of interventions to correct offending behaviour.

• These partnerships have led to 76 parolees being employed permanently by the Working-on-Fire programme. To improve offender reintegration, 212 parolees and probationers were provided with start-up tools to enable them to open their own businesses and thereby contributing to employment creation. These partnerships have added employment opportunities for parolees in the current financial year. There are also numerous cases of successful rehabilitation/reintegration including businesses operated by ex-offenders who have been provided with start-up tools, who have in turn employed other offenders/community members.

• The employability of ex-offenders is the key indicator of successful reintegration. In numerous interactions former offenders who have remained law-abiding citizen for years but they are finding it extremely difficult to maintain or retain their employment after employers had discovered that they have criminal record. A criminal record is a barrier to a successful reintegration of offenders because the majority of employers are reluctant to hire ex-offenders, thereby relapsing into life of crime as means of survival. The Department of Correctional Services is in the process of providing inputs on the expungement of a criminal record to the South African Law Reform Commission.

Reply:

The Department of Justice and Constitutional Development spent the following amounts on advertising: Publication (aa) 2012/2013 (bb) 2013/2014 (cc) 2014/2015 Sowetan N.A. R1,899,151.22 R2,207,842.37 Daily Sun N.A. R2,184,923.24 R1,894,286.46 (i)Legal Aid SA: Publication (aa) 2012/2013 (bb) 2013/2014 (cc) 2014/2015 Sowetan R60,374.40 R154,967.04 R90,944.64 Daily Sun R112,039.20 R186,732.00 R149,385.60 (iii) National Prosecuting Authority: Publication (aa) 2012/2013 (bb) 2013/2014 (cc) 2014/2015 Sowetan R28,892.16 R18,374.76 R275,193.26 Daily Sun N. A. N.A. R59,635.68   (ii) Special Investigation Unit: The SIU has reported that they have not spent on advertising in the Sowetan and Daily Sun newspapers in the period in question.

Department of Correctional Services

The details pertaining to amount spent on advertising are as follows:

(i) The Sowetan

(aa) 2012-13 financial year : None

(bb) 2013-14 financial year : None

(cc) 2014-15 financial year : R59 540.83

(ii) The Daily Sun

(aa) 2012-13 financial year : None

(bb) 2013-14 financial year : None

(cc) 2014-15 financial year: None

Office of the Chief justice and judicial administration

The Office of the Chief Justice did not place any advertisements in the (i) Sowetan and (ii) Daily Sun newspapers in the (aa) 2012-13, (bb) 2013-14 and (cc) 2014-15 financial years, consequently no monies were spent towards advertising.

Reply:

The Minister wishes to inform the Honorable member as follows: Questions regarding investigations by the South African Police Service and the SA Revenue Service should be submitted to the Minister of Police and the Minister of Finance, respectively, as it does not fall within the line function of my Ministry. I have been informed that the National Prosecuting Authority is not aware of such a matter being referred to the prosecutor. Falls away. Yes. If more substantiated can be provided.

Reply:

The SIU Report is still in process of legal review by the SIU. The reason for this process taking so long is that the lead investigator passed away. As a result a new investigator had to be assigned to re-engage the whistleblowers to clarify certain aspects of the investigation.

Reply:

(a) One hundred and twelve (112) applications for medical parole were received in the 2013-2014 financial year.

(b) Thirty eight (38) applications were recommended by the Medical Parole Advisory Board (MPAB) and out of this thirty seven (37) were successfully released. One (01) not released due to lack of family support.

(c) Fifty nine (59) applications were not recommended by the MPAB for medical parole as they did not meet criteria for release. None of these applicants died whilst incarcerated.

For the remaining fifteen (15):

• Seven (7) died before they could be examined by the Medical Parole Advisory Board (MPAB):
• One (1) died whilst awaiting further medical examination and
• Seven (7) are awaiting further review by the MPAB.

Reply:

No, parole has not been approved for the mentioned offender. He was sentenced to life imprisonment on 22 October 1999 for Robbery x 4; Rape x 2; attempted murder; assault grievous bodily harm (GBH); attempted escape x 2; housebreaking with intent to rob and robbery with aggravating circumstances; housebreaking with intent to steal; theft; unlawful possession of fire-arm x 5 and unlawful possession of ammunition x 3.

The offender was considered by the Minister of Correctional Services on 11 October 2013 for possible placement on parole. The Minister decided that the offender should be reconsidered during October 2015. During this period, the following should inter alia be addressed:

• Offender needs to undergo individual Psychotherapy in order to address his anger towards females and needs to attend counselling sessions to address parental guidance and communication styles.
• A copy of the judgement on conviction and sentence be obtained.
• The profile reports of the accomplices of the offender should be subjoined to the National Council for Correctional Services and Minister during October 2015.

Reply:

 

(1) No.

(2) No.

(3) (a)- (d) falls away.

 

Reply:

(a)(i)(aa) The SIU conducted one investigation into the South African Police Service (SAPS). Although two Proclamations (R42 of 2010 and R73 of 2010) were issued by the President in respect of the SAPS, . Proclamation R73 of 2010 simply extended the period of investigation that had been set out in the initial Proclamation. The matters that the SIU was required to investigate were as follows:

alleged procurement irregularities relating to:
• procurement of a new two-way radio communication network for the Eastern Cape Province (Tetra);

• National Police Day 2009/10 and 2010/11:

• procurement of police uniforms;

• procurement of lntenda Procure Solutions; and
• procurement of solar panels (Boschkop Police Station)

- devolution of functional responsibilities from DPW to SAPS
-building and/or renovations of 33 Police Stations conflicts of interest

Re: (a)(i)(bb) and (a)(ii) The investigation relating to the SAPS has been finalised and the SIU is in the process of compiling the Report to be submitted to the President.

(b) The outcomes are as follows
• criminal referral letters were sent in respect of 16 persons
• disciplinary referral letters were sent in respect of 116 SAPS members
• an acknowledgement of debt to the value of R496 000 was obtained
• In respect of the Eastern Cape Tetra contract, the SIU is considering approaching the High Court for an order cancelling the contract and recommending criminal and disciplinary action against certain SAPS officials.
 

Reply:

In the period under review, the NCACC considered and decided on a number of applications under the Regulation of Foreign Military Assistance Act (Act 15 of 1998). The decisions of the NCACC in this regard are contained on the table attached below. It needs to be understood though that in the consideration of these applications the NCACC sometimes calls for the submission of additional information which is not always positively met. In such an event, the NCACC therefore does not make a final decision.

Find here: Regulation of Foreign Military Assistance Authorisations