Questions and Replies

Filter by year

17 March 2017 - NW361

Profile picture: Terblanche, Ms JF

Terblanche, Ms JF to ask the Minister of Justice and Correctional Services

What is the (a) make, (b) model, (c) price and (d) date on which each vehicle was purchased for use by (i) him and (ii) his deputies (aa) in the (aaa) 2014-15 and (bbb) 2015-16 financial years and (bb) since 1 April 2016?

Reply:

Minister of Justice and Correctional Services

 

Question (aaa)

2014/15

Make

Model

Price

Date purchased

(i)

Minister of Justice and Correctional Services

Mercedes Benz

ML 350 BlueTec (Black)

R716 500.00

16/8/2013

 

Minister of Justice and Correctional Services

Mercedes Benz

ML 350 BlueTec(Silver)

R784 190.00

06/9/2013

 

Question (bbb)

2015/16

Make

Model

Price

Date purchased

(i)

Minister of Justice and Correctional Services

Mercedes Benz

ML 350 (Black)

R716 500.00

As per table (aaa) – vehicle not replaced

 

Minister of Justice and Correctional Services

Mercedes Benz

ML 350 (Silver)

R784 190.00

As per table (aaa) –vehicle not replaced

*No vehicles purchased since 1 April 2016 to date.

Deputy Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development

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

Question type

FINANCIAL YEARS

 

2014-15

2015-16

Since 1 April 2016

a) Make

Two (2) Toyota Lexus

No vehicle purchased in the 2015-16 financial year, and since 1 April 2016 to date. The Deputy Minister is currently using the same vehicles purchased in July 2014.

2.b) Model

ES250 EX

 

c) Price

R438 152.00 per vehicle

 

d) Date purchased

July 2014

 

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

Deputy Minister of Correctional Services

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

(ii)(aa)(aaa)(bbb)(bb)

a) Make

b) Model

(c)Price

(d) date on which each vehicle was purchased

Date used by his deputies

2014-15

MERCEDES BENZ

S400

R1 198 834.19

2014/09/03

2014/2015 to date

2014-15

MERCEDES BENZ

ML400

R1 200 000.00

2014/09/03

2014/2015 to date

2015-16

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

2015-16

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

2016-17

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

2016-17

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

14 March 2017 - NW83

Profile picture: Selfe, Mr J

Selfe, Mr J to ask the Minister of Justice and Correctional Services

(1)(a) How many instances of physical abuse of inmates by wardens have been reported at the St Albans Prison in Port Elizabeth since 1 January 2014 to date and (b)(i) how many investigations into the cases were finalised and (ii) what was the outcome of each case;

Reply:

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

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

ST ALBANS MAXIMUM

DATE/ YEAR

1(a) NUMBER OF ASSAULTS REPORTED

(b)(i)(ii) NUMBER OF CASES INVESTIGATES AND OUTCOME OF THE INVESTIGATIONS

2014

35 Cases reported

32 x cases were not opened by victims therefore they were finalised

3 x cases opened with SAPS – Finalised

2015

43 cases reported

36x cases were not opened by victims therefore they were finalised

3x cases opened with SAPS – Finalised

4 x cases opened with SAPS but offender did not want to open a case – Finalised

2016

11 cases reported

9 x cases opened with SAPS – Finalised

1 x case - offender did not want to open a case- Finalised

1 x case opened with SAPS - Pending

2017 AS OF 31 JANUARY

1 case reported

1 x case opened with SAPS in 2017 – Pending

ST ALBANS REMAND DETENTION

2014

14 cases reported

2x cases opened with SAPS – Finalised

5 x cases opened with SAPS – Pending

6 x cases reported but detainees did not open the case

2015

35 cases reported

4 x cases opened with SAPS – Finalised

1 x case opened with SAPS – Pending

30 x reported but not opened by detainees therefore finalised

2016

11 cases reported

7 x cases opened with SAPS – Finalised

3 x cases opened with SAPS - Pending

1 x case not opened by the Detainee

ST ALBANS MEDIUM B

2014

34 cases reported

8 x cases opened with SAPS – Finalised

8 x cases opened with SAPS – Pending

1 x case withdrawn by the Prosecutor – Finalised

17 x cases not opened by offenders

2015

35 cases reported

11 x cases opened with SAPS – Finalised

4 x cases opened with SAPS – Pending

20 x cases not opened by offenders therefore finalised

2016

10 cases reported

3 x cases opened with SAPS – Finalised

7 x cases not opened by offenders therefore finalised

2017

1 case reported

1 x case opened with SAPS - Pending

14 March 2017 - NW184

Profile picture: Selfe, Mr J

Selfe, Mr J to ask the Minister of Justice and Correctional Services

(1) Is his department working with the Department of Public Works to resolve the water supply crisis at the Barberton Prison Farm, if not, why not; if so, (2) will the pipeline to the livestock farming area be closed; if not, why not; if so (a) by what date will it be closed and (b) how will the livestock be fed in the interim; (3) will repairs be done to the (a) existing pumping system at the dams, (b) seven boreholes on prison property, (c) pipelines from the boreholes to the reservoirs and (d) plumbing inside the prison areas; if not, why not; if so, by what date will work commence and be completed in each case; (4) will new boreholes and pipelines to the reservoirs be refurbished and/or replaced; if not, why not; if so, by what date will work (a) commence and (b) be completed in each case?

Reply:

(1) Yes,

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

(2) (a) Not Applicable

(b) Not applicable

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

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

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

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

(4) No,

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

14 March 2017 - NW203

Profile picture: Terblanche, Ms JF

Terblanche, Ms JF to ask the Minister of Justice and Correctional Services

What are the reasons that case number 2016/37284 regarding Transnet, which was heard in the Gauteng Local Division of the High Court, was removed from the court roll?

Reply:

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

14 March 2017 - NW85

Profile picture: Selfe, Mr J

Selfe, Mr J to ask the Minister of Justice and Correctional Services

(1)What (a) facilities are available for prisoners at the St Albans prison in Port Elizabeth to receive contact visits and (b) are the relevant prison policies in this regard; (2) (a) what facilities are available in the specified prison for medical treatment of inmates and (b) how many (i) qualified doctors and (ii) registered nurses are employed (aa) full-time and (bb) part-time in these facilities; (3) (a) what facilities are available in the St Albans prison for prisoners’ personal hygienic needs, including washing facilities, trimming of hair and nails and (b) what are the relevant policies put in place in this regard?

Reply:

  1. (a) The following facilities are available for contact visits:
  • St Albans Remand Detention Facility: accommodates 20 people at a time
  • St Albans Medium B Correctional Centre: accommodates 40 people at a time
  • St Albans Maximum Correctional Centre: accommodates 40 people at a time

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

 

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

(b) (i) One permanently appointed doctor.

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

(aa) All are full–time employees

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

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

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

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

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

08 March 2017 - NW200

Profile picture: Maynier, Mr D

Maynier, Mr D to ask the Minister of Justice and Correctional Services

With reference to the final report prepared by a certain person (name furnished) into the collapse of African Bank, entitled African Bank Limited: Investigation in terms of s69A of the Banks Act, 94 of 1990, which has been referred to the National Director of Public Prosecutions and his reply to question 1700 on 30 August 2016, what is the name of the prosecutor assigned to the matter; 2) whether the (a) perusal of the specified report has been finalised and/or (b) final report has been referred for further investigation; if not, in each case, why not; if so, what are the full details in each case?

Reply:

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

2. (a) Yes,

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

27 February 2017 - NW84

Profile picture: Selfe, Mr J

Selfe, Mr J to ask the Minister of Justice and Correctional Services

(1)(a) How many (i) inmates died of unnatural causes in the St Albans Prison in Port Elizabeth in the 2016 calendar year and (ii) inquest dockets were opened to investigate the deaths and (c) what are the full details in each case in respect of (i) progress, (ii) outcome and (iii) recommendations or applicable follow-up action to date; (2) Are any security cameras installed at the specified prison operated and/or owned by a private security company; if not, what is the position in this regard; if so, what are the relevant details?

Reply:

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

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

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

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

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

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

05 January 2017 - NW2718

Profile picture: Alberts, Mr ADW

Alberts, Mr ADW to ask the Minister of Justice and Correctional Services

Whether the Government, seen against the background of its constitutional obligations in respect of human rights, intends signing and ratifying the Optional Protocol to the International Convention on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights; if not, why not; if so, by what date will this be done; (2) whether the Government, seen against the background of its constitutional obligations regarding human rights, intends to institute local legislation supportive of the treaty itself as well as the optional protocol; if not, why not; if so, by what date will this take place?

Reply:

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

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

05 January 2017 - NW2719

Profile picture: Alberts, Mr ADW

Alberts, Mr ADW to ask the Minister of Justice and Correctional Services

Whether, in light of the fact that South Africa has signed and ratified the International Convention/Treaty on Civic and Political Rights, including the optional protocol which allows for individual complaints, the Government intends creating legislation for making the rights contained in the Treaty applicable locally; if not, why not, given the Government’s international and constitutional obligations in this regard; if so, (a) by what date and (b) what are the further relevant particulars regarding the process and proposed content; (2) how many of all the international human rights instruments have been signed and ratified by South Africa; (3) in cases where there was no signing or ratification of a convention/treaty, what was the reason for that, seen against the background of the Government’s constitutional obligations regarding human rights; (4) whether there are any plans for signing or ratifying the convention/treaty; (5) (a) what are the compulsory dates for handing in the reports, (b) on what dates has the Government actually submitted reports since the signing and ratification of each international human rights instrument, (c) what are the reasons for any default regarding the submission or late submission of the reports in each separate case and (d) whether each of the reports is available?

Reply:

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

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

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

The enactment of national legislation. Same is receiving attention.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

   (c) Challenges with capacity and lengthy consultative processes.

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

09 December 2016 - NW2651

Profile picture: Selfe, Mr J

Selfe, Mr J to ask the Minister of Justice and Correctional Services

(1)Whether he is aware of the incident that allegedly took place on 1 April 2016 at the Barberton Maximum Security Prison in Mpumalanga, where one inmate, with prison registration number (details furnished), allegedly assaulted a Mozambican citizen, with prison registration number (details furnished), with a razor blade inside the prison kitchen; if not, why not; if so, (2) has any investigation been undertaken in this regard; if not, (a) why not and (b) by what date will an investigation be launched; if so, what are the (i) full relevant details and (ii) outcomes of the specified investigation; (3) what interventions and/or support services is his department rendering to (a) assist the victim, (b) prevent the occurrence of similar incidents in the future and (c) appropriately deal with the alleged perpetrator?

Reply:

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

(2) Yes, a departmental investigation was instituted.

(2)(a) N/A

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

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

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

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

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

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

02 December 2016 - NW2559

Profile picture: Pilane-Majake, Dr MC

Pilane-Majake, Dr MC to ask the Minister of Justice and Correctional Services

In light of the fact that the Justice, Crime Prevention and Security Cluster’s efforts to reduce the number of remand detainees in correctional services, estimated to be 40 000, which have not managed to yield the desired results, what additional measures is he, as the Executive responsible for three of the Budget Votes that directly impact on this desired outcome, recommending to deal with overcrowding in correctional centres that is too costly for the country?

Reply:

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

Periods

Average number of RDs

Average March 2012

47191

Average Sept 2012

45138

Average March 2013

46852

Average Sept 2013

43360

Average March 2014

43973

Average Sept 2014

40146

Average March 2015

42901

Average Sept 2015

40675

Average March 2016

44026

Average Sept 2016

41486

Reduction in numbers

5705

Reduction in %

12.09%

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

Children Remand Detainees:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  1. The implementation of bail protocol (Section 63A of Criminal Procedure Act, Act 51 of 1977). The protocol makes provision for the Head of a Correctional Centre to approach the relevant court to release an accused on warning in lieu of bail or to amend the bail conditions imposed by that court when the offender population of a particular correctional centre is reaching such proportions that it constitutes a material and imminent threat to human dignity, physical health or safety of the accused. It is worth mentioning that this section is only applicable to those accused with bail who have been charged with Schedule 7 crimes.
  1. The Marketing of section 63(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act (Act 51 of 1977). Section 63(1) makes provision for the accused or prosecutor to make an application to the court to reduce the amount of bail that was set by the relevant court.
  1. Referral of RDs to court for consideration of their length of detention. The Correctional Service Act (section 49G) makes provision for the Head of the Centre to submit an application to court for the consideration of the length of detention of the RDs before they complete two years in detention initially (application submitted at 21 months) and annually with regard to subsequent applications. The provision does not suggest that there is custody limit in terms of period of detention in South Africa for RDs. The courts responds by utilizing the provisions applicable to section 63A applications as there is no parallel provision in the Criminal Procedure Act.

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

28 November 2016 - NW2522

Profile picture: Breytenbach, Adv G

Breytenbach, Adv G to ask the Minister of Justice and Correctional Services

What amount have all (a)(i) civil and (ii) criminal litigation and (b) internal disciplinary proceedings instituted against Mr Anwa Dramat, Mr Shadrack Sibiya, Mr Robert McBride and Mr Johan Booysen cost his department; 2) what amount has his department been ordered by the courts to pay for cost orders in each of the specified cases for (a)(i) civil and (ii) criminal litigation and (b) internal disciplinary proceedings instituted against each of the specified persons as at the latest specified date for which information is available?

Reply:

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

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

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

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

25 November 2016 - NW2512

Profile picture: Masango, Ms B

Masango, Ms B to ask the Minister of Justice and Correctional Services

Whether he is aware of any instances where cases before Children’s Courts were not able to be heard due to the social worker’s failure to comply with the placing of an advertisement in a local newspaper circulating in the area where the abandoned and/or orphaned child was found, in line with Regulation 56 of Regulation R261 of 1 April 2010 of the Children’s Act, Act 38 of 2005, as amended; if not, what is the position in this regard; if so, what are the relevant details?

Reply:

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

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

25 November 2016 - NW2520

Profile picture: Breytenbach, Adv G

Breytenbach, Adv G to ask the Minister of Justice and Correctional Services

Whether he has taken any action against any employee of the National Prosecuting Authority for persisting in prosecuting a certain person (name furnished) despite the fact that the State was allegedly aware that it could not prove prejudice in the specified prosecution; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details?

Reply:

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

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

25 November 2016 - NW2397

Profile picture: Selfe, Mr J

Selfe, Mr J to ask the Minister of Correctional Services

(1) Whether a certain company (details furnished) signed any (a) contracts and/or (b) agreements with (i) his department and/or (ii) any provincial department of correctional services to render any services from 1 January 2005 to date; if not, what is the position in this regard; if so, (aa) on what date was each contract and/or agreement signed, (bb) what are the full details of the specified services that the specified organisation was expected to render in each case, (cc) where did the organisation render the services in each case and (dd) what is the total cost of each of the specified contracts and/or agreements?

Reply:

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

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

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

(aa)

on what date was each contract and/or agreement signed

(bb)

what are the full details of the specified services that the specified organisation was expected to render in each case

(cc)

where did the organisation render the services in each case

(dd)

what is the total cost of each of the specified contracts and/or agreements

Gauteng Region

May - July 2005

  • HIV AIDS Peer Educators Training (74 offenders)

Leeuwkop Management Area

Nil

July-December 2005

  • Substance Abuse

Leeuwkop Management Area

Nil

September 2008

  • Silence the Violence Programme, HIV AIDS & Substance Abuse

Krugersdorp, Leeuwkop and Zonderwater Management Area

Nil

June-September 2014

  • Restorative Justice Processes Training to Psychologists, Social Workers and Spiritual Care Personnel

Boksburg M/Area

Nil

Western Cape Region

April 2009 – December 2009

  • Roll-out of Peer Education Support Groups, Monthly Monitoring of Peer Education Support Group, Staff training and orientation (administrative side)

Worcester Male Centre

Worcester Female Centre

Robertson Correctional Centre

Dwarsriver Correctional Centre

Nil

Kwazulu Natal Region

No contract or agreement was signed with Khulisa.

However the organization rendered programmes from 2008 to 2009

  • Peer education programme:
  • My path personal development programme
  • Drug smart peer education programme
  • HIV/AIDS peer education programme

Durban Female Centre

Nil

No contract or agreement signed. However the organisation rendered programmes in 2009

Organization rendered programmes to Parolees and offenders which were:

  • Sexual Offenders Programmes
  • Problem- Solving problem
  • Finding the employment programme

Empangeni Community Corrections

Qalakabusha Correctional Centre

Nil

No contract or Agreement signed. However the organisation rendered programmes in 2008

Programmes rendered to offenders and Remand Detainees:

  • Making Amend-Restorative Justice Programme
  • Cycle of Crime
  • Cross Roads

Ladysmith Correctional Centre (offenders)

Bergville Correctional Centre (offenders)

Dundee Correctional Centre (Remand Detainees)

Nil

No contract or Agreement signed. However the organisation rendered programmes from 2005 to 2007

The Waterval Management Area has recently entered into an agreement with Khulisa from September 2016 to September 2017

Peer education programme:

  • My path personal development programme
  • Drug smart peer education programme
  • HIV/AIDS Peer education programme

Waterval Medium A

Newcastle Community Corrections

Nil

25 November 2016 - NW2554

Profile picture: Horn, Mr W

Horn, Mr W to ask the Minister of Justice and Correctional Services

(a) What progress has been made with the Special Investigating Unit’s investigation into contracts of the Gauteng Health Department since the announcement of Proclamation R21 of 14 May 2010, (b) what are the full relevant reasons for the delays in finalising the specified investigation and (c) by what date will the investigation be completed; 2) whether any criminal charges have been laid against any person involved in the investigation; if not, (a) why not and (b) by what date will criminal charges be laid against involved persons; if so, what are the relevant details?

Reply:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 (a) 3P Consulting (PTY) Ltd

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

 (b) Baoki Consortium

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

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

25 November 2016 - NW2521

Profile picture: Breytenbach, Adv G

Breytenbach, Adv G to ask the Minister of Justice and Correctional Services

Whether he has taken any action against any employee of the National Prosecuting Authority for persisting in prosecuting a certain person (name furnished) despite the fact that the State was allegedly aware that it could not prove prejudice in the specified prosecution; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details?

Reply:

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

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

25 November 2016 - NW2519

Profile picture: Horn, Mr W

Horn, Mr W to ask the Minister of Justice and Correctional Services

(a) How many cases relating to the contravention of the Public Finance Management Act, Act 1 of 1999, as amended, is the National Prosecuting Authority currently prosecuting and (b) what is the quantum of each of the specified prosecutions?

Reply:

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

Particulars of the Matter

Quantum/Amount Involved

1. The State v Legodi Boshielo & 2 others – Project Mobile Classrooms - Department of Education - Limpopo

R70 million

2. The State v Mogotlane and Nemavhola- Project Mankele Bridge - Department of Roads and Transport - Limpopo

R79,5 million

3. The State v Mweli and Others- Project Department of Education - North West

R16 million

4. The State v Sbu Ndebele and Others - Project Tasima - Department of Transport - Pretoria

R42.5 million

5. The State v Savoy and Others- Project Intaka- Department of Health - KZN

R70 million

6. The State v .Energy Utility Services (Pty) Lt and Others – Project Eskom – Western Cape

R65 million

7. The State v Steven Jonkers and Another- Project Bus Contractor - Department of Transport - Northern Cape

R14,5 million

8. The State v Scholtz and Others - Project Trifecta - Department of Social Development - Northern Cape

R200 million

25 November 2016 - NW2327

Profile picture: Singh, Mr N

Singh, Mr N to ask the Minister of Justice and Correctional Services

Whether, with reference to a certain Labour Court matter (details furnished) and the order of the Acting Labour Court Judge (name and details furnished) that his judgment be sent to the Magistrates' Commission, the National Prosecuting Authority and the Director-General of the Department of Justice and Correctional Services for investigation into the conduct of the magistrate who handled the matter at the Morekeng Periodical Court in the North West (details furnished), he can confirm that (a) the Director of Public Prosecutions will be appealing the sentence handed down by the magistrate in this matter and (b) a date has been set for the hearing of such appeal; if so, what are the full relevant details in each case?

Reply:

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

18 November 2016 - NW2341

Profile picture: Horn, Mr W

Horn, Mr W to ask the Minister of Justice and Correctional Services

How many offenders were referred for psychiatric evaluation in the 2015-16 financial year; 2) whether there was an increase in the number of offenders referred for psychiatric evaluation in the 2015-16 financial year as compared to the 2014-15 financial year; if so, why?

Reply:

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

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

18 November 2016 - NW2321

Profile picture: Carter, Ms D

Carter, Ms D to ask the Minister of Justice and Correctional Services

Whether he requested the attendance of the National Director of Public Prosecutions, Mr Shaun Abrahams, at a meeting held at Luthuli House, the headquarters of the ANC, with the President, Mr Jacob G Zuma, and others, including himself; if so, (a) what was the purpose of the meeting, (b) was the impending prosecution of the Minister of Finance discussed and (c) what was the rationale behind scheduling an official meeting pertaining to Government at the headquarters of the ANC?

Reply:

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

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

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

18 November 2016 - NW2338

Profile picture: Breytenbach, Adv G

Breytenbach, Adv G to ask the Minister of Justice and Correctional Services

(a) How did the National Prosecuting Authority calculate its conviction rate for the 2015/16 financial year and (b) which factors did it take into account when calculating the specified rate; 2) (a) what is the total number of cases that (i) were withdrawn in each region in the specified financial year and (ii) were re-enrolled in the 2016/17 financial year and (b) what are the relevant details in each case?

Reply:

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

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

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

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

FINANCIAL YEAR

DIVISION

District Courts

Regional Courts

SCCU

High Courts

TOTAL

2015/2016

ECD

10877

1094

4

5

11980

2015/2016

ECD Mthatha

1386

279

0

6

1671

2015/2016

FSD

5053

931

20

9

6013

2015/2016

KZND

20641

2160

55

11

22867

2015/2016

NCD

2809

281

0

3

3093

2015/2016

NGD

17621

2719

63

6

20409

2015/2016

NWD

2702

711

0

0

3413

2015/2016

SGD

6096

1807

80

9

7992

2015/2016

WCD

27934

2000

24

5

29963

2015/2016 Total

 

95119

11982

246

54

107401

18 November 2016 - NW2339

Profile picture: Horn, Mr W

Horn, Mr W to ask the Minister of Justice and Correctional Services

What are the detailed reasons for the decline in the (a) conviction and (b) sentencing rates of cases of (i) organised and (ii) house robbery crimes in the National Prosecuting Authority’s 2015-16 annual report, which do not comport with a decline in national crime rates?

Reply:

Regarding the Organised crime

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

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

Regarding the House Robberies

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

                             
                     

15

Comparison 2013-2014 with 2014-2015

 
 

Province

April 2005
to
March 2006

April 2006
to
March 2007

April 2007
to
March 2008

April 2008
to
March 2009

April 2009
to
March 2010

April 2010
to
March 2011

April 2011
to
March 2012

April 2012
to
March 2013

April 2013
to
March 2014

April 2014
to
March 2015

Case
Diff

% Change

%
Contribution

1

Gauteng

74990

67643

63559

68961

74429

70447

64475

68296

67988

66172

-1816

-2,7%

26,1%

2

Western Cape

40837

43011

42239

42792

43171

43685

44494

49509

50503

47783

-2720

-5,4%

18,8%

3

KwaZulu-Natal

40631

39486

36898

37515

40231

39439

41010

45404

43969

43274

-695

-1,6%

17,1%

4

Eastern Cape

32978

31421

29346

28380

28233

27086

26825

25782

24643

24329

-314

-1,3%

9,6%

5

Mpumalanga

20305

19444

18785

19766

19206

18026

18117

18777

18489

18183

-306

-1,7%

7,2%

6

Limpopo

12768

12346

11790

12332

13936

13376

15225

14851

16477

16466

-11

-0,1%

6,5%

7

North West

15463

13684

13576

14277

14859

14740

14569

15705

15388

15687

299

1,9%

6,2%

8

Free State

17353

15939

15545

16040

15682

14828

15101

17284

16314

15618

-696

-4,3%

6,2%

9

Northern Cape

6078

5488

4900

5402

5531

4985

4851

5711

6013

6204

191

3,2%

2,4%

                             
 

South Africa

261402

248462

236638

245465

255278

246612

244667

261319

259784

253716

-6068

-2,3%

 

18 November 2016 - NW2340

Profile picture: Horn, Mr W

Horn, Mr W to ask the Minister of Justice and Correctional Services

What are the detailed reasons for the decline in the (a) finalisation rate and (b) issuing of freezing orders by the National Prosecuting Authority’s Asset Forfeiture Unit reported in its 2015-16 annual report?

Reply:

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

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

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

18 November 2016 - NW2342

Profile picture: Tarabella - Marchesi, Ms NI

Tarabella - Marchesi, Ms NI to ask the Minister of Justice and Correctional Services

What are the detailed reasons for the National Prosecuting Authority’s (NPA) court hours declining by 7% in the 2015/16 financial year; 2) whether any measures have been put in place to address the specified decline of the NPA’s court hours; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details; 3) whether the reduction of the NPA’s court hours needs to be addressed in conjunction with the (a) magistracy and/or (b) judiciary; if not, what is the position in this regard; if so, what are the relevant details of all steps taken to date in each case?

Reply:

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

Table 4: Progress on criminal court hours

FORUM

AVE HOURS

2014/15

Total Court Hours

AVE HOURS

2015/16

Total Court Hours

Progress

HIGH COURT

03:04

25798:15

02:48

26976:20

-8,7%

REGIONAL COURT

03:38

260785:48

03:26

254333:54

-5,2%

DISTRICT COURT

03:29

590284:31

03:13

562694:30

-7,7%

ALL

03:31

876868:34

03:16

844 004:44

-7.0%

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

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

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

18 November 2016 - NW2344

Profile picture: Tarabella - Marchesi, Ms NI

Tarabella - Marchesi, Ms NI to ask the Minister of Justice and Correctional Services

(a) What detailed measures have been put in place to address the 18,7% increase in the backlog of the number of cases at the National Prosecuting Authority in the 2015-16 financial year and (b) what is being done to address the specified backlog in the (i) lower and (ii) high courts?

Reply:

Number of case backlogs

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

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

The overall progress is indicated below:

Table21: Progress on case backlogs

FORUM

2014/15

% of National

2015/16

% of National

Progress

HIGH COURT

216

0,8%

190

0,7%

-12,0%

REGIONAL COURT

14 106

52,5%

14 485

48,9%

2,7%

DISTRICT COURT

12 572

46,7%

14 924

50,4%

18,7%

ALL

26 894

100,0%

29 599

100,0%

10,1%

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

Table 19: Progress on outstanding cases

FORUM

2014/15

% of National

2015/16

% of National

Progress

HIGH COURT

   817

0,5%

892

0,5%

9,2%

REGIONAL COURT

41 895

24,4%

40 291

21,8%

-3,8%

DISTRICT COURT

128 996

75,1%

144 019

77,8%

11,6%

ALL

171 708

100,0%

185 202

100,0%

7,9%

Case backlogs and backlog project

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

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

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

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

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

18 November 2016 - NW2345

Profile picture: Rabotapi, Mr MW

Rabotapi, Mr MW to ask the Minister of Justice and Correctional Services

What is the current vacancy rate in respect of the positions of prosecutors of the National Prosecuting Authority in each region?

Reply:

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

VACANCY RATES as on 30 September 2016

Overall vacancy per business unit:

COMPONENT NAME

TOTAL

FILLED

VACANT

VACANCY RATE

Assets Forfeiture Unit (AFU)

165

131

34

20.7

Sexual Offences and Community Affairs (SOCA)

220

155

65

29.5

Specialised Commercial Crimes Unit (SCCU)

190

165

25

13.2

Office of Witness Protection (OWP)

164

153

11

6.8

Priority Crimes Litigation Unit (PCLU)

7

4

3

42.9

Corporate Services

501

385

116

23.2

TOTAL

1247

993

254

20.4

Vacancy Rate per Division – Prosecutions

TOTAL NO OF FILLED, VACANT AND VACANCY RATE National Prosecution Service (NPS)

 

 

 

 

 

 

REGION

TOTAL

FILLED

VACANT

VACANCY RATE

NORTH GAUTENG

512

428

84

16.4

SOUTH GAUTENG

545

480

65

12

NORTH WEST

201

189

12

6

LIMPOPO

305

253

52

17

MPUMALANGA

243

191

52

21.4

EASTERN CAPE

416

366

50

12

MTHATHA

203

168

35

17.2

WESTERN CAPE

633

575

58

9.2

NORTHERN CAPE

176

148

28

16

FREE STATE

290

255

35

12

KwaZulu-Natal

722

621

101

14

NPS (Head Office)

52

50

2

3.8

TOTAL

4298

3724

574

13.4

 

 

 

 

 

18 November 2016 - NW2348

Profile picture: Selfe, Mr J

Selfe, Mr J to ask the Minister of Justice and Correctional Services

(1)Whether a certain offender ( Mr Raphel Nyamazane), who escaped from the Barberton TB Specialised Hospital in Mpumalanga after being incarcerated at the Barberton Maximum Correctional Centre for 22 years for rhino poaching and related crimes, has been apprehended; if not, (a) why not and (b) what action is his department taking in this regard; if so, on what date was the specified offender apprehended after his escape attempt; (2) Whether his department has taken any action against the correctional service officers who were on guard at the specified hospital when the escape occurred; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details; (3) (a) how many offenders detained in medical facilities outside of their detention facilities have (i) attempted to escape and/or (ii) succeeded in escaping in each of the past five years, (b) how long did it take to apprehend each of the offenders in each case and (c) what action was taken against the correctional service officers who were on guard in each case?

Reply:

1. The escapee has not yet been rearrested.

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

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

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

Year

Name of medical facility

Date of attempted escape

Number of attempted escapees

2012/2013

Nil

   

2013/2014

Nil

   

2014/2015

Katleho Hospital

18/01/2015

1

2015/2016

Tambo Memorial Hospital

01/08/2015

1

 

Mohau Hospital

05/11/2015

1

2016/2017

Nil

   

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

Year

Name of medical facility

Date of escape

Number of escapees

Date rearrested

Disciplinary action against officials

2012/2013

Tambo Memorial Hospital

17/12/2013

1

24/12/2013

A sanction of two (2) month salary suspension was implemented against 2 officials.

2013/2014

Victoria Public Hospital

03/03/2014

1

03/03/2014

One official received a final written warning.

2014/2015

Barberton General Hospital

01/05/2014

1

01/05/2014

Sanction of Final Written Warning against 2 officials.

 

Baragwanath Hospital

27/08/2014

1

13/06/2015

One (1) official was dismissed.

 

Kimberley hospital

02/11/2014

1

Still at large

One (1) official was suspended for 3 months without salary.

2015/2016

Worcester hospital

02/06/2015

1

06/06/2015

Two (2) officials were charged. Each received a final written warning.

 

King Edward hospital

17/07/2015

1

Still at large

Sanctions instituted against one (1) official (1 month suspension with no salary).

2016/2017

George Mukhari hospital

01/05/2016

1

08/05/2016

The official was criminally charged for aiding an escape.

 

Tshepong hospital

13/06/2016

1

Still at large

Disciplinary actions are instituted against correctional officials who were on guard but not finalised.

 

Nelson Mandela Academic hospital

13/09/2016

1

Still at large

Investigation not finalised.

 

SANTA hospital

19/10/2016

1

 Still at large

Investigation still in process.

 

Victoria Public hospital

31/10-2016

1

Still at large

Investigation still in process.

15 November 2016 - NW2341

Profile picture: Horn, Mr W

Horn, Mr W to ask the Minister of Justice and Correctional Services

How many offenders were referred for psychiatric evaluation in the 2015-16 financial year; 2) whether there was an increase in the number of offenders referred for psychiatric evaluation in the 2015-16 financial year as compared to the 2014-15 financial year; if so, why?

Reply:

  1. During the 2015/16 financial year, 2 369 persons who were charged with a variety of criminal offences, were referred for psychiatric evaluation by the courts, according to the records held at the Department of Health in this regard.
  2. Yes. There appears to be a very small increase in the number of persons (namely 4 more persons) that were charged and referred for psychiatric evaluation in the 2015/16 financial year compared to the previous 2014/15 financial year, where 2 365 persons were referred for psychiatric evaluation, according to the records held at the Department of Health in this regard. The number of persons that are charged and referred for psychiatric evaluation by the courts may differ from year to year as it is dependent on the assessments made by the courts as to whether there is a need for such referral for psychiatric evaluation.

14 November 2016 - NW2343

Profile picture: Tarabella - Marchesi, Ms NI

Tarabella - Marchesi, Ms NI to ask the Minister of Justice and Correctional Services

Whether any measures have been put in place to address the decline of 11,4% of National Prosecuting Authority cases finalised with court verdicts from 2010 to date; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details?

Reply:

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

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

Table 6: Progress on cases finalised with a verdict

FORUM

2014/15

% of National

2015/16

% of National

Progress

HIGH COURT

978

0,3%

1012

0,3%

3,5%

REGIONAL COURT

33 430

10,5%

31 832

10,2%

-4,8%

DISTRICT COURT

284 741

89,2%

278 006

89,4%

-2,4%

ALL

319 149

100,0%

310 850

100,0%

-2,6%

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

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

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

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

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

14 November 2016 - NW2337

Profile picture: Breytenbach, Adv G

Breytenbach, Adv G to ask the Minister of Justice and Correctional Services

With reference to the 2015/16 annual report of the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA), (a) what are the relevant details of the ongoing training offered to the prosecutors of the NPA to address declining levels of skills, (b) at what level is the specified training being offered and (c) by whom; and 2) (a) what are the relevant details of the ongoing mentoring offered to the prosecutors of the NPA to address declining levels of skills, (b) at what level is the specified mentoring being offered, (c) by whom and (d) what form does the mentoring take?

Reply:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

09 November 2016 - NW2161

Profile picture: Waters, Mr M

Waters, Mr M to ask the Minister of Justice and Correctional Services

Whether, with reference to the reply of the Minister of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs to question 1741 on 23 September 2016, he intends to introduce legislation to move the Matatiele Local Municipality back to KwaZulu-Natal from the Eastern Cape; if not, why not; if so, (a) by what date and (b) what are the further relevant details?

Reply:

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

08 November 2016 - NW2300

Profile picture: Mokgalapa, Mr S

Mokgalapa, Mr S to ask the Minister of Justice and Correctional Services

Whether any (a) internal and/or (b) external forensic reports pertaining to (i) his department and/or (ii) each entity reporting to him were completed from 1 January 2009 up to the latest specified date for which information is available; if not, in each case, why not; if so, what is the (aa) name, (bb) subject matter and (cc) date of conclusion of each of the specified forensic reports?

Reply:

1.Department of Justice and Constitutional Development:

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

2. Entities:

2.1 National Prosecuting Authority (NPA):

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

2.2 Special Investigating Unit (SIU):

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

​2.3 Legal Aid South Africa:

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

aa) Name

bb)Subject matter

cc) Date of

conclusion

(A) 2010/11 financial year

1. Allegation on performing private work and utilising Legal Aid South Africa’s assets and stationery

Allegations against a Justice Centre Executive for performing private work. It was alleged the Executive used Legal Aid SA’s stationery, printers and personnel to run his private business.

4 October 2010

2. The alleged use of Ms. Martha Mbhele’s 3G by someone else

Alleged use of a 3G card allocated to Legal Aid SA employee by someone else.

27 September 2010

3. Half day leave review at Bloemfontein Justice Centre

Review of half days leave taken at justice centre

11 July 2011

4. Complaint by Ms Ntombikhona Emmaculate Dlamini

An investigation of circumstances relating to the legal services rendered by Judicare practitioner to a legal Aid Sa client in an eviction matter

February 2011

5. Fixed asset disposed off, but is still reflected in the asset Register

Investigation of a suspicious deposit slip submitted as proof of payment for a disposed asset.

8 October 2010

6. Break-in at second floor national office Finance Department and the conduct of the corporate services manager.

An investigation of a break-in at National Office Finance Department second floor during the 2010 December year end closure.

16 February 2011

7. Allegation on non-adherence to policies, theft, abuse of Power and conflict of interest

  1. An alleged use of Legal Aid SA’s vehicle by an employee without authorisation;
  1. the sale/scrapping of assets without proper authorisation by an employee; and
  1. a suspected conflict of interest in awarding a contract to install burglar guards at a Justice Centre.

30 September 2010

aa) Name

bb)Subject matter

cc) Date of conclusion

(B) 2011/12 financial year

1. Thembisa Justice Centre receptionist’s cash stolen from her hand bag.

Investigation of circumstances in which cash was stolen from an employee’s hand bag at a Justice Centre.

23 September 2011

2. Fraud suspected invoices and quotations at Soweto Justice Centre.

Suspected fraudulent invoice and quotations at Justice Centre.

3 June 2011

3. Irregularities relating to the disposal of fixed asset and the management of petty cash at Ermelo Justice Centre.

Suspected irregularities relating to the disposal of fixed asset and the management of petty cash at a Justice Centre.

11 October 2011

4. Agency agreement practitioner MB Popo & company

Suspected fraudulent claim by an Agency Agreement practitioner.

30 November 2011

5. Stolen cellphones at Procurement department.

Disappearance of two cellphones from Procurement Manager’s office. The cellphones were delivered by Vodacom to be distributed to employees who had ordered the phones under the contract Legal Aid SA had with Vodacom

12 October 2011

6. Alleged Soshanguve JCE improper conduct and poor managerial skills

An alleged misconduct by Justice Centre Executive for ill-treating and undermining her subordinates.

3 October 2011

7. Legal Aid SA Principal Attorney suspected of trying to pass work of other practitioners as that of his own for quality assessment purposes.

An alleged attempted fraud by a Legal Aid SA Principal Attorney who tried to claim work of other practitioners as his for quality assessment purposes.

14 July 2011

8. Mr. Makgape Sophia Rammala received R2,000.00 cash from the client’s sister Ms. Fengie Masha

An allegation against a Legal Aid SA legal practitioner based at a Satellite Office for charging a member of public fees for legal assistance given to Legal Aid SA’s client.

25 November 2011

aa) Name

bb)Subject matter

cc) Date of conclusion

(C) 2012/13 financial year

1. Retrieving evidence on 3 hard drives from Pietermaritzburg Justice Centre

A complaint that alleged that a Legal Aid SA Principal Attorney’s computer hard drives contained pornographic files.

9 May 2012

2. Interview questions sent to selected shortlisted job applicants.

A complaint that alleged that a Justice Centre Executive emailed interview questions to the applicant.

4 December 2012

3. Cover quoting from Creative Office Furniture and Impilo Lifestyle

A suspected cover quoting by external bidders for Legal Aid SA work or contract.

14 December 2012

4. Irregularities relating to the disposal of a Toyota Yaris at Ermelo Justice Centre

An allegation that a Legal Aid SA pool vehicle was disposed at a value below the original reserve price.

5 March 2013

5. Description of goods not specified on the invoices for procurement at Nelspruit Justice Centre.

An alleged circumvention and or violation of Legal Aid SA Supply Chain policy and procedures in procuring office grocery.

25 January 2013

(D) 2014/15 financial year

  1. Financial irregularities and conflict of interest at the Pretoria Justice Centre

A suspected existence of conflict of interest when a contract was awarded.

29 July 2014

(E) 2015/16 financial year

1. Forensic investigation on the missing computer at the Kwa-Zulu Natal regional office

Investigation of circumstances in which a laptop computer got missing while it was allocated to and in custody of a Legal Aid

employee,

26 May 2015

2. Forensic potential conflict of interest at the Ermelo Justice Centre, Piet Retief satellite office

A suspicion of existence of conflict of interest when a cleaning contract at Justice Centre was awarded.

23 July 2015

3. Forensic report suspected irregular expenditure at Modimolle Justice Centre

A suspicion of occurrence of irregularities in awarding a contract for office refurbishment at Justice Centre.

22 January 2016

4. Forensic potential conflict of interest at the Soweto Justice Centre

A suspected conflict of interest by a legal practitioner.

28 September 2015

5. Alleged conflict of interest at Bloemfontein justice centre

A Legal Aid SA Justice Centre Executive was alleged to owning a company that was doing with Legal Aid SA resulting in conflict of interest.

29 March 2015

(F) 2016/17 financial year

1. Alleged abuse of legal Aid resources

A Legal Aid SA employee was accused of abusing Legal Aid SA resources (computer and photocopying facility) for private matters.

2 June 2016

2. Alleged payment requested by a justice practitioner for legal representation services

A former Legal Aid SA employee was accused of having requested payment for his services in representing a client on behalf of Legal Aid SA. The employee had retired when the accusations were made.

6 June 2016

3. suspected overstatement of claims by a Judicare Practitioner at Vryheid Justice Centre

A Judicare Practitioner was suspected to have submitted fraudulent and overstated claim for work that was done on behalf of Legal Aid SA.

15 June 2016

4. Suspected use of pool vehicle without authorization at the Queenstown Justice Centre

A Legal Aid SA employee was alleged to have used a pool vehicle for private business.

27 June 2016

5. Client money received by a paralegal and not paid over to the client at Musina satellite office

A Legal Aid SA Paralegal was alleged to have taken money that was meant for the client in the sale of an RDP house.

15 August 2016

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

3. Department of Correctional Services:

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

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

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

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

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

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

04 November 2016 - NW2226

Profile picture: Kohler-Barnard, Ms D

Kohler-Barnard, Ms D to ask the Minister of Justice and Correctional Services

(a) How many Special Investigating Unit investigations are currently being conducted into the Department of Public Works in each province, (b) what is the reason for each of the specified investigations and (c) by what date is each of the specified investigations expected to be finalised?

Reply:

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

PROCLAMATION

PROVINCE

REASONS FOR THE INVESTIGATIONS

EXPECTED DATE TO BE FINALISED

  1. Proclamation No. R.54, 2014. There are seventeen (17) matters listed as well as an additional thirteen (13) matters listed in the amendment to the abovementioned Proclamation, amended to Proclamation No. R44 of 2015.

Western Cape

The Investigation relates to the refurbishment of ministerial homes in and around Cape Town at allegedly vastly inflated costs. The Proclamation concerned confines the investigation to:

(i) the procurement of goods and services; and

(ii) unauthorized, irregular and/or fruitless and wasteful expenditure incurred in relation to the DPW projects listed in the two (2) Proclamations.

31 March 2017

2. Proclamation No. R59 of 2014 dated 27 August 2014

National Department of Public Works

1. Procurement and Administration of leases which is not fair, competitive, transparent, equitable or cost effective;

2. Irregularities, malpractices or mal-administration in the affairs of DPW;

3. Any related unauthorized, irregular or fruitless and wasteful expenditure;

4. Theft, fraud and/or corruption by private individuals/landlords; and

5. Procurement irregularities relating to service providers.

Currently, 649 leases are under investigation out of a total of 2 176 leases. The provincial breakdown is as follows:

(i) Eastern Cape – 142;

(ii) Western Cape – 48;

(iii) Mpumalanga – 105;

(iv) Free State – 100;

(v) Kwa-Zulu Natal – 54;

(vi) Gauteng – 136;

(vii) North-West – 37; and

(viii) Mthatha – 27.

March 2018

3.Proclamation No. R38 of 2010

Gauteng

(i) Allegations of irregular Supply Chain Management award in terms of Section 217 of the Constitution as well as fruitless and wasteful expenditure; and

(ii) A lease investigation where we are in negotiations with the current landlord and DPW on overpayments to the landlord both in Gauteng.

Based on these matters (civil proceedings), SIU cannot anticipate the end date.

4. Proclamation No. R27 of 2015

Kwa-Zulu Natal

(i) Allegations of irregular appointment of service provider - 4 matters;

(ii) Allegations of fruitless and wasteful expenditure - 1 matter;

(iii) Allegations of fraud and corruption - 3 matters; and

(iv) Allegations of conflict of interest - 420 matters.

September 2017

 

Western Cape

(i) Allegations of fraud and corruption - 2 matters; and

(ii) Allegations of conflict of interest - 230 matters.

 
 

Eastern Cape

Allegations of conflict of interest - 344 matters

 
 

Pretoria Office

(i) Allegations of "cover quoting" - 7 matters;

(ii) Allegations of irregularities in the Security Project - 1 matter;

(iii) Allegations of irregular expenditures during the 2014/15 regularity audit - 1 matter;

(iv) Allegations of fraud and corruption - 2 matters; and

(v) Allegations of conflict of interest – 2 705 matters.

 
 

Bloemfontein Office

(i) Allegations of poor service and non-delivery by service providers - 23 matters;

(ii) Fraud and corruption - 1 matter;

(iii) Allegations of conflict of interest - 677 matters; and

(iv) Assisting the Hawks on 6 matters.

 

31 October 2016 - NW2129

Profile picture: Mulder, Dr PW

Mulder, Dr PW to ask the Minister of Justice and Correctional Services

Whether a certain judge (Judge Motata) is still on special leave with full pay; if so, (a) why has the hearing of the specified person not yet been concluded and (b) what steps will be taken to conclude the hearing; (2) whether any of the monies are repayable if the specified person is found guilty; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details? (3) what is the total amount that has been paid to the specified person since being placed on special leave in 2007;

Reply:

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

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

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

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

17 October 2016 - NW2096

Profile picture: Macpherson, Mr DW

Macpherson, Mr DW to ask the Minister of Justice and Correctional Services

What amount did (a) his department and (b) each entity reporting to him spend on advertising on the (i) Africa News Network 7 channel, (ii) SA Broadcasting Corporation (aa) television channels and (bb) radio stations, (iii) national commercial radio stations and (iv) community (aa) television and (bb) radio stations (aaa) in the 2015-16 financial year and (bbb) since 1 April 2016?

Reply:

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

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

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

SERVICE PROVIDER

TOTAL COST

RADIO STATIONS

COST PER STATION

CAMPAIGN

SABC Radio

R 798 817.95

Ukhozi FM

R 221 692.95

TRC Education Assistance Regulations

   

Umhlobo Wenene FM

R 129 352.95

TRC Education Assistance Regulations

   

Lesedi FM

R 145 666.35

TRC Education Assistance Regulations

   

Motsweding FM

R 106 652.70

TRC Education Assistance Regulations

   

Limpopo Combo

R 131 738.40

TRC Education Assistance Regulations

   

Mpumalanga Combo

R 63 714.60

TRC Education Assistance Regulations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Financial implications:

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

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

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

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

(C) LEGAL AID SOUTH AFRICA

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

Financial Year

Medium

Advertisement Spent

 

Television

 

(aaa) 2015/2016

(i) ANN7

R0

 

(ii) SA Broadcasting Corporation

 
 

(aa) Television channels

R660 750

 

SABC 1

R146 250

 

SABC 2

R364 500

 

SABC 3

R150 000

 

(bb) Radio stations

R465 899

 

Lotus FM

 
 

RSG

 
 

SAFM

 
 

Ukhozi FM

 
 

Umhlobo Wenene FM

 
 

Lesedi FM

 
 

Thobela FM

 
 

Ikwekwezi FM

 
 

Ligwalagwala FM

 
 

Munghana Lonene FM

 
 

Phalaphala FM

 
 

(iii) National Commercial Radio stations

R0

 

(iv) Community

R0

 

(aa) Television

R0

 

(bb) Radio stations

R0

Total for 2015/16

 

R1 126 649

     

(bbb) Since 1 April 2016

SABC Radio

R933 840

 

SABC TV

R1 215 000

 

Committed expenditure in 2016/17

 
 

E-TV

R600 000

 

SABC Radio

R935 404

 

SABC TV

R684 000

Total for 2016/17

 

R4 368 244

     

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

13 October 2016 - NW2026

Profile picture: Boshoff, Ms SH

Boshoff, Ms SH to ask the Minister of Justice and Correctional Services

What formal qualifications does each of his department’s (a)(i) Chief Financial Officers and/or (ii) acting Chief Financial Officers and (b)(i) Directors-General and/or (ii) acting Directors-General possess?

Reply:

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

     (i) Senior Certificate;

     (ii) Baccalaurreus Computationis (B.Compt);

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

    (iv) Magister Commercii (M.Com).

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

     (i) Senior Certificate; and

     (ii) Baccallaureus Procurationis (Law).

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

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

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

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

 

13 October 2016 - NW2096

Profile picture: Macpherson, Mr DW

Macpherson, Mr DW to ask the Minister of Justice and Correctional Services

What amount did (a) his department and (b) each entity reporting to him spend on advertising on the (i) Africa News Network 7 channel, (ii) SA Broadcasting Corporation (aa) television channels and (bb) radio stations, (iii) national commercial radio stations and (iv) community (aa) television and (bb) radio stations (aaa) in the 2015-16 financial year and (bbb) since 1 April 2016?

Reply:

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

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

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

SERVICE PROVIDER

TOTAL COST

RADIO STATIONS

COST PER STATION

CAMPAIGN

SABC Radio

R 798 817.95

Ukhozi FM

R 221 692.95

TRC Education Assistance Regulations

   

Umhlobo Wenene FM

R 129 352.95

TRC Education Assistance Regulations

   

Lesedi FM

R 145 666.35

TRC Education Assistance Regulations

   

Motsweding FM

R 106 652.70

TRC Education Assistance Regulations

   

Limpopo Combo

R 131 738.40

TRC Education Assistance Regulations

   

Mpumalanga Combo

R 63 714.60

TRC Education Assistance Regulations

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

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

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

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

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

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

Financial implications:

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

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

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

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

(C) LEGAL AID SOUTH AFRICA

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

Financial Year

Medium

Advertisement Spent

 

Television

 

(aaa) 2015/2016

(i) ANN7

R0

 

(ii) SA Broadcasting Corporation

 
 

(aa) Television channels

R660 750

 

SABC 1

R146 250

 

SABC 2

R364 500

 

SABC 3

R150 000

 

(bb) Radio stations

R465 899

 

Lotus FM

 
 

RSG

 
 

SAFM

 
 

Ukhozi FM

 
 

Umhlobo Wenene FM

 
 

Lesedi FM

 
 

Thobela FM

 
 

Ikwekwezi FM

 
 

Ligwalagwala FM

 
 

Munghana Lonene FM

 
 

Phalaphala FM

 
 

(iii) National Commercial Radio stations

R0

 

(iv) Community

R0

 

(aa) Television

R0

 

(bb) Radio stations

R0

Total for 2015/16

 

R1 126 649

     

(bbb) Since 1 April 2016

SABC Radio

R933 840

 

SABC TV

R1 215 000

 

Committed expenditure in 2016/17

 
 

E-TV

R600 000

 

SABC Radio

R935 404

 

SABC TV

R684 000

Total for 2016/17

 

R4 368 244

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

13 October 2016 - NW2061

Profile picture: Grootboom, Mr GA

Grootboom, Mr GA to ask the Minister of Justice and Correctional Services

Whether each Head of Department (HOD) of his department signed a performance agreement since their appointment; if not, (a) what is the total number of HODs who have not signed performance agreements, (b) what is the reason in each case, (c) what action has he taken to rectify the situation and (d) what consequences will the specified HOD face for failing to sign the performance agreements; if so, (i) when was the last performance assessment of each HOD conducted and (ii) what were the results in each case; 2) whether any of the HODs who failed to sign a performance agreement received a performance bonus since their appointment; if not, what is the position in this regard; if so, (a) at what rate and (b) what criteria were used to determine the specified rate; 3) whether any of the HODs who signed a performance agreement received a performance bonus since their appointment; if so, (a) at what rate and (b) what criteria were used to determine the rate?

Reply:

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

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

    (b) Not applicable

    (c) Not applicable

     (d) Not applicable

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

      (ii) Not applicable.

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

     (a) N/A

      (b) N/A

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

    (a) N/A

     (b) N/A

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

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

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

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

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

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

(1)(a) Not applicable

(1)(b) Not applicable

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

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

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

(1)(d)(ii) Not applicable

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

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

10 October 2016 - NW1979

Profile picture: Selfe, Mr J

Selfe, Mr J to ask the Minister of Justice and Correctional Services

(1) Whether all the inmates incarcerated in the Middledrift Correctional Centre in the Eastern Cape are accommodated in conditions that conform with the regulations issued in terms of section 7(1) of the Correctional Services Act, Act 111 of 1998, as amended; if not, (a) what is the total number of inmates who are not accommodated in terms of the specified regulations, (b) in what respect are the regulations not being adhered to, (c) why are inmates accommodated in contravention of the regulations and (d) what steps are being taken to ensure that all inmates at the specified correctional centre are being accommodated in conformity with the regulations; (2) whether the centre has been affected by interruptions in the supply of water from 1 March 2016 up to the latest specified date for which information is available; if so, what (a) are the relevant details and (b) steps are being taken to ensure an uninterrupted supply of water at the centre?

Reply:

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

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

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

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

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

  • Improving effective and appropriate use of conversion of sentences to community correctional supervision;
  • Timeous consideration of offenders for possible release on parole; and
  • Transfers between correctional centres in an attempt to establish some degree of evenness of overcrowding.

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

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

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

26 September 2016 - NW1746

Profile picture: Carter, Ms D

Carter, Ms D to ask the Minister of Justice and Correctional Services

Whether all recommendations of the Jali Commission Report of December 2005 were implemented; if not, why not; if so, what was the outcome?

Reply:

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

  • Human resource related recommendations:
    • Strategies were developed in order to deal with-
    • appointments made due to union influence;
    • failure to attract external skills;
    • ineffective transformation;
    • ineffective disciplinary code;
    • merit award system;
    • disciplinary enquiries;
    • recruitment;
    • abuse of power and sexual harassment;
    • The department has also migrated to the seven-day working week as recommended.
    • Monies relating to Medcor fraud were recovered.
  • Gangsterism
    • A gang management strategy was formulated and is currently being implemented
  • Correctional centre security
    • Minimum Security standards adopted and implemented
    • Access control in centres has been increased with CCTV’s installed at access control points. The new generation correctional centres also have security technology installed as part of the infrastructure of the centres.
  • Parole and conversion of sentences
    • A total of 53 parole boards have been established and it is expected for these structures to meet regularly to assess those eligible for parole. A medical parole board has also been established to focus only on cases for which parole may be awarded based on an offenders’ medical condition. The review board was established with the sole aim of reviewing complaints related to awarding and denial of parole. The National Council for Correctional Services (NCCS) has also been established.
  • Sexual violence in correctional centres
  • A policy to address sexual abuse of inmates in DCS facilities was developed;
  • Post Exposure prophylaxis is administered;
  • Regular health education is conducted for inmates;
  • The independence of the Judicial Inspectorate was strengthened by amendment the Correctional Services Act which now provides for a Chief Executive Officer to manage the office of the Judicial Inspectorate under the authority of the inspecting judge.

The following actions were taken in the supply chain environment:

  • Internal controls
    • To ensure proper control mechanisms a unit specialising in internal control and compliance matters has been established. This unit is able to regularly assess whether the necessary controls are being implemented within the department.
  • Management of investigations
    • The specialised departmental investigating unit has been established and is constantly making follow up where investigations are concerned.

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

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

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

  • Managing levels of Remand Detainees through the Integrated Justice System Case Management Task Team and Inter-Sectoral Committee on Child Justice;
  • Managing levels of sentenced offenders through improving effective and appropriate use of conversion of sentence to community correctional
  • supervision, release on parole and transfers between correctional centres to attempt to establish some degree of evenness of overcrowding;

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

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

23 September 2016 - NW1898

Profile picture: Selfe, Mr J

Selfe, Mr J to ask the Minister of Justice and Correctional Service

Whether a certain law firm (name and details furnished), provided any form of (a) legal advice and/or (b) advisory services to him with respect to the Public Protector’s reports entitled (i) Secure in Comfort, report no 25 of 2013/14, (ii) Inappropriate Moves, report no 13 of 2013/14 and (iii) When Governance and Ethics Fail, report no 23 of 2013/14; if so, in each case, (aa) during which specified financial years were the services rendered and (bb) what was the cost of the services?

Reply:

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

(aa) and (bb) Not applicable.

23 September 2016 - NW1884

Profile picture: Groenewald, Dr PJ

Groenewald, Dr PJ to ask the Minister of Justice and Correctional Services

How many protection orders were issued in the country’s courts in the (a) 2012-13, (b) 2013-14 and (c) 2014-15 financial years;

Reply:

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

Protection Orders Made Final: Section 6

Financial Year

Grand Total

Provinces

2012/13

2013/14

2014/15

 

Eastern Cape

13 567

14 075

13 382

41 024

Free State

5 790

6 625

6 235

18 650

Gauteng

17 962

16 344

15 364

49 670

Kwa-Zulu Natal

13 511

13 740

13 551

40 802

Limpopo

7 931

8 014

8 462

24 407

Mpumalanga

6 276

6 362

6 436

19 074

North-West

4 548

5 424

5 658

15 630

Northern Cape

2 730

3 701

4 429

10 860

Western Cape

16 615

14 219

13 668

44 502

Grand Total

88 930

88 504

87 185

264 619

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

23 September 2016 - NW1885

Profile picture: Groenewald, Dr PJ

Groenewald, Dr PJ to ask the Minister of Justice and Correctional Services

Whether he is aware of the fact that the SA Police Service is referring some criminal offences directly to the courts without conducting a proper investigation and making an entry in the crime register; if not, what is the position in this regard; if so, (a) how many of the specified cases were referred directly to the courts countrywide in the (i) 2014-15 and (ii) 2015-16 financial years without proper investigation and (b)(i) what types of offences and (ii) how many of each specified offence were referred in such a way in each specified year; 2) whether he will make a statement on the matter?

Reply:

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

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

(a) and (b) not applicable

2. No statement is required.

13 September 2016 - NW1866

Profile picture: Maimane, Mr MA

Maimane, Mr MA to ask the Minister of Justice and Correctional Services

With reference to the Minister of Police’s replies to question (a)(i) 3723 on 2 November 2015 and (ii) 62 on 29 February 2016 and (b) oral question 98 on 26 May 2016, (aa) what is the current status of docket CAS 123/03/2014, which was opened at the Nkandla Police Station regarding eight charges of corruption against the President, Mr Jacob G Zuma, in terms of the Prevention and Combatting of Corrupt Activities Act, Act 12 of 2004, for his complicity in the alleged misappropriation of public funds to upgrade his personal residence at Nkandla, (bb) which unit is the specified docket currently with, (cc) who is or are the investigating officer(s) and (dd) has anyone been questioned in this regard yet?

Reply:

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

30 August 2016 - NW1700

Profile picture: Maynier, Mr D

Maynier, Mr D to ask the Minister of Justice and Correctional Services

Whether the National Director of Public Prosecutions received a copy of the final report prepared by Advocate John Myburgh into the collapse of African Bank, entitled African Bank Limited: Investigation in terms of s69A of the Banks Act, 94 of 1990; if not, why not; if so, (a) what is the name of the person(s) who handed the specified report to him and (b) on what date was the specified report handed to the National Prosecuting Authority; 2) whether the specified report has been referred for further investigation; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details?

Reply:

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

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

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

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

30 August 2016 - NW1684

Profile picture: Selfe, Mr J

Selfe, Mr J to ask the Minister of Justice and Correctional Services

(1)Whether certain offenders (names and details furnished) at the Mangaung Correctional Services Facility have been placed in single cells for more than 60 days at a time during their incarceration; if not, what is the position in this regard; if so, (a) why and (b) when will the specified offenders be moved to regular cells; (2) Whether the two specified offenders qualify to be transferred to correctional services facilities in the City of Cape Town and surrounds, which is close to their families who wish to assist in their rehabilitation; if not, in each case, why not; if so, in each case, what processes should be followed?

Reply:

1. No.

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

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

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

14 June 2016 - NW1641

Profile picture: Alberts, Mr ADW

Alberts, Mr ADW to ask the Minister of Justice and Correctional Services

What is the real reason that the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) has decided to appeal against the finding of the High Court, in which it was found that the decision of the NPA to suspend the prosecution of the President, Mr Jacob G Zuma, in terms of the 783 charges of gangsterism, corruption and fraud, had been irrational; 2) why is the NPA not giving the President an opportunity to answer to the charges in a criminal court; 3) whether the NPA when they decided to appeal took into consideration the judgment of the Supreme Court of Appeal in the case National Director of Public Prosecutions v Zuma (2009), where the finding of Judge Nicholson was rejected, and the findings of the Constitutional Court in the case Albutt v Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation and Others (2010) and the case Democratic Alliance v President of the Republic of South Africa and Others (2011); if not, why not; if so, (a) why is the NPA then persisting with an appeal when the margin for success is slim and (b) whether the NPA cannot therefore face prosecuting the President?

Reply:

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr Mpshe continued:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In this regard the NPA made the following submissions:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

14 June 2016 - NW1491

Profile picture: Malatsi, Mr MS

Malatsi, Mr MS to ask the Minister of Justice and Correctional Services

(1) (a) How many times has the Commission on Gender Equality (CGE) issued subpoenas against (i) individuals, (ii) private organizations, (iii) public organizations and (iv) government departments since its inception in 1996, (b) on what date was each subpoena issued and (c) what were the reasons in each respective case; (2) whether each specified individual, organization or department complied with each specified subpoena; if not, (a) which individuals, organizations or departments did not comply and (b) what steps, if any, did the CGE take in cases where its subpoenas were ignored?

Reply:

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

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

 

14 June 2016 - NW1593

Profile picture: Robertson, Mr K

Robertson, Mr K to ask the Minister of Justice and Correctional Services

Whether, with reference to (a) the Minister of Police’s reply to question 671 on 1 April 2016 and (b) his reply to question 1275 on 20 May 2016, a certain docket (details furnished) has been submitted for prosecution yet; if not, 2) (a) is the specified case still being discussed at the National Prosecuting Authority and (b) what progress has been made with regard to establishing the course of action for the specified case; if so, what (i) is the charge against the accused and (ii) progress has been made with the specified prosecution to date?

Reply:

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

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