Questions and Replies

Filter by year

29 April 2022 - NW1186

Profile picture: Tito, Ms LF

Tito, Ms LF to ask the Minister of Justice and Correctional Services

Whether, following the recent escape of four offenders at Rooigrond Correctional Centre in Mahikeng, the specified facility has the required manpower and an equipped management to prevent future occurrences; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details?

Reply:

The bed space capacity of Rooigrond Medium A Correctional Centre is 645, the current inmate population is 895 which is 38.76% over populated. Based on the inmate population, the current approved posts establishment is not sufficient.

The centre has an approved post establishment of 196, with 183 filled (93.37%) and 13 posts vacant (6.63%). The Department has a new organisational structure approved by the Minister of Justice and Correctional Services for consultation to address the challenges of staff shortage.

END.

29 April 2022 - NW1166

Profile picture: Msimang, Prof CT

Msimang, Prof CT to ask the Minister of Justice and Correctional Services

(1)Whether, with reference to the appointment of Mr Makgothi Samuel Thobakgale as Acting National Commissioner of the Department of Correctional Services on 27 September 2021, following the departure of Mr Arthur Fraser almost six months ago, any plans are in place for the appointment of a permanent National Commissioner; if not, why not; if so, (2) whether he will furnish Prof C.T Msimang with (a) a timeline for the appointment of a permanent National Commissioner of the Department of Correctional Services and (b) the date on which this process will begin; if not, why not in each case; if so, what are the relevant details in each case?

Reply:

(1) Yes, plans are in place for the appointment of a permanent National Commissioner.

(2)(a) A four months recruitment plan is in place and it is envisaged that a permanent National Commissioner will be appointed no later than 31 July 2022.

(2)(b) The process has begun as the position was advertised on 07 March 2022 with a closing date of 28 March 2022. It is envisaged that shortlisting and interviews will be conducted during April 2022 and May 2022.

END

29 April 2022 - NW1117

Profile picture: Horn, Mr W

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

With reference to his reply to oral question 3 on 2 March 2022, that his department and the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) are working with the National Treasury in order to finalise a protocol and system in terms of which the NPA will be enabled to make use of donor funding in order to deal with the prosecution of cases that are flowing from the reports of the Judicial Commission of Inquiry into Allegations of State Capture, Corruption and Fraud in the Public Sector including Organs of State, what (a) progress has been made in finalising the specified protocol and system and (b) is the target date by which the protocol and system will be finalised and implemented?

Reply:

On 17 February 2022, the Director-General (DG) of the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development (DoJ&CD) approved the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA)’s request to establish a multi-disciplinary Task Team to Develop/Review the draft Terms of Reference (ToR) for the Donor Review Committee prepared by the NPA.

The Task Team met on 8 March and 25 March 2022. The Task Team is currently in the process of compiling a detailed report to the National Director of Public Prosecutions and the DG of DoJ&CD in which certain recommendations will be made on purpose, and the rules and procedures that will govern its operations.

The target date for implementation of the protocol is 30 June 2022.

29 April 2022 - NW1019

Profile picture: Msimang, Prof CT

Msimang, Prof CT to ask the Minister of Justice and Correctional Services

What (a) action is his department taking to curb the smuggling of goods and contraband into prisons and (b) number of officials who are implicated in the cases have been (i) officially dismissed and (ii) prosecuted in the past two years?

Reply:

a) The following are the key actions towards curbing the contraband into DCS facilities:

  • DCS officials are sensitised to comply with Security policies and procedures by ensuring that proper and regular searches of inmates, officials, visitors and services providers are conducted at Access Control points. For any non-compliance, consequence management which includes disciplinary cases and opening criminal cases with SAPS is undertaken.
  • Bag-less society is implemented in all Correctional Facilities and the relevance of this is discussed during morning parade and at security forum committee meetings.
  • Frequent patrolling of outer perimeter fencing on a daily basis including foot patrols during the day and night.
  • Officials are sensitised on a daily basis on the consequences of colluding in corrupt activity with offenders and inmates.
  • Smuggling and corrupt activities by officials within the Correctional Facilities is a standing point of the agenda at morning parade and at security forum meetings
  • Searching of official vehicles, service providers and visitors using metal detectors search mirrors, scanners and body scanners at entry points.
  • The use of EST officials to conduct random surprise search operations at all access points of the Correctional Facility.
  • The assistance of SAPS, Metro Police (sniffer dogs), South African Revenue Services inspection services (illegal imports) and Crime Intelligence Unit are requested at different intervals
  • The use of DCS K9 Unit (sniffer dogs & corridor dogs) during surprise searching operations.
  • The use of walkthrough, hand held metal detectors, scanners, of parcel scanners and the use of x/ray scanners which are installed at certain Correctional Facilities
  • Incidents of smuggling by officials with offenders are investigated and disciplinary action taken against perpetrators.
  • Use of internal information gathering on smuggling or corrupt activities.
  • The Emergency Security Team (EST) at Management Areas is tasked to continually do search and clean-up operations.
  • M&E including provision of support to custodial officials by management.
  • The issue of integrated planning with stakeholders which features prominently as DCS works closely with other players in the security space, such as, SAPS, DOD, CSIR, etc. does yield good results.

(b)(i) Eighteen (18) officials have been dismissed for smuggling goods and contrabands.

(b)(ii) Seventy-four (74) officials were prosecuted in the past two years, 40 cases for 2019/2020 financial year and 34 cases for 2020/2021 financial year.

END.

28 April 2022 - NW1205

Profile picture: Chirwa, Ms NN

Chirwa, Ms NN to ask the Minister of Justice and Correctional Services

Following his engagement with the stakeholders who are activists in the quest for decriminalisation of sex work in the Republic, (a) what were the resolutions of the engagement, (b) how do the resolutions nourish the advocacy for decriminalisation of sex work and (c) what role will he be playing in the quest for decriminalisation for sex work?

Reply:

The South African Law Reform Commission released its Report on Adult Prostitution in 2017. Cabinet, at the time, decided not to make a policy choice at that stage and felt that the issue of the possible decriminalisation of sex work should be further debated. There are various policy and legislative options. In order to take the debate on the possible decriminalization of adult sex work forward, the Deputy Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development, Mr John Jeffery, has started a series of consultative meetings with various stakeholders and interest groups. The Deputy Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development has met with representatives of the pro-decriminalization sex work sector and has had similar meetings with other stakeholders who have a variety of views on the matter.

a) No resolutions have been taken as the engagements with stakeholders are ongoing, but the intention is to proceed with the finalization of a Draft Bill by the end of this year.

b) There are no resolutions as the engagements are ongoing, but the engagements with stakeholders seek to elicit a wide range of views on the matter.

c) As mentioned above, the current engagements are being led by the Deputy Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development. Once a Draft Bill has been prepared, the Minister will approach Cabinet to seek approval to publish the Bill for public comment.

28 April 2022 - NW1327

Profile picture: Horn, Mr W

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

With reference to the preliminary report received by the Department of Justice on the structural defects pertaining to the Palm Ridge Magistrates’ Court Building in Gauteng, which advised that a further and full investigation by a structural engineer was called for on an urgent basis in order to ascertain with certainty whether the structural deficiencies of the specified court building were of such a nature that it was no longer safe to use, what steps have been taken (a) to source on an urgent basis such further report by a structural engineer and (b) in the meantime to ensure adherence to health and safety standards at the building?

Reply:

a) The Department of Justice and Constitutional Development (DoJ&CD)’s Gauteng Regional Office requested the Department of Public Works and Infrastructure (DPWI) to conduct a structural assessment on the Palm Ridge Court facility on 08 November 2021.

The request was based on numerous complaints that the users of the building had been raising to the attention of the DoJ&CD’s Gauteng Regional Office where administration staff, judiciary and the public at large felt they were not safe to either occupy or utilize the Palm Ridge Magistrate Court facility due to its severe structural defects.

The assigned structural engineer visited the site to conduct an inspection on 15 November 2021. The nature of the inspection involved assessment of the Palm Ridge Magistrate Court facility to pronounce on its structural integrity and provide recommendations. The recommendations on the Investigation Report, Condition Assessment: Palm Ridge Magistrate Court were that a complete status quo report be conducted by a professional team and where the need for further investigation arises, a specialist be requested.

The DoJ&CD wrote to DPWI and requested that a comprehensive assessment on the structural integrity of the building be conducted, and a new repairs and renovations project on the facility be registered.

ZAS Architects & Planners and Fhatani Consulting Engineers together with representatives from DPWI and DoJ&CD undertook a review of issues identified within the Investigation Report: Conditional Assessment: Palm Ridge Magistrates Court, Johannesburg as prepared by DPWI on Thursday, 3 February 2022. A detailed report, dated 8 February 2022, covers two (2) sections, a response to remedial items identified by the structural engineering services division and prioritization of remedial items identified.

ZAS Architects & Planners and Fhatani Consulting Engineers provided their professional opinion that there were no major remedial items identified that warrant the building unsafe, and the facility can be used for its intended purpose. Notwithstanding, the remedial work as identified should be carried out expeditiously.

b) The structural engineer report has declared the building safe for occupation. However, the report further outlined the remedial works that needed to be executed as part of the maintenance of the court. DPWI has attended to the following identified challenges on an emergency basis:

  1. Leaking roof;
  2. Damaged ceilings;
  3. Non-functional lift;
  4. Damaged flooring;
  5. Urinal systems; and
  6. High-rise lighting globes.

For the remedial work required to fix the cracks, DPWI is in the process of appointing a contractor. In anticipation of the appointment of the contractor to fix the wall cracks, DoJ&CD is of the view that the remedial work cannot be executed while the users are in the building.

The DoJ&CD has been looking for an alternative accommodation for officials occupying the one wing which is severely affected by wall cracks. Two (2) locations have been identified, one (1) is a community hall within a 5km radius of the court earmarked as alternative accommodation, upon municipality engagement and approval. The second location is a vacant land parcel opposite the court, this is privately owned and can be utilized as parking. The owner of the site has agreed to let out the land to DoJ&CD officials to use as parking daily. The courts parking area will be used to place park-homes as offices and mobile courts while repairs are being attended to at the court.

END

28 April 2022 - NW1067

Profile picture: Khawula, Ms MS

Khawula, Ms MS to ask the Minister of Justice and Correctional Services

(a) What are the reasons that his department has failed to intervene and/or resolve the matter relating to a certain official (name and details furnished), who has been repeatedly prevented from assuming responsibilities, despite various arbitration and court orders instructing the department to re-instate the specified official and (b) on what date is it envisaged that the official will be allowed back at work without any further hindrances?

Reply:

a) The Department did not fail to intervene and/or resolve the matter in terms of administrative legislative prescripts. The Department is following processes provided for in law.

b) The matter is handled within legislative prescripts and must be allowed to follow due course. The matter is sub judice as fair administrative procedure depends on prevailing circumstances of each case.

END

28 April 2022 - NW754

Profile picture: Yako, Ms Y

Yako, Ms Y to ask the Minister of Justice and Correctional Services

What (a) is the (i) current total number of inmates requiring medical care in the Republic and (ii) most prevalent disease amongst inmates and (b) steps has his department taken to prevent inmates from getting sick?

Reply:

(a) (i) The current total number of inmates requiring medical care in South African correctional facilities cannot be predicted for a particular time as they all remain potential patients. Nonetheless, all inmates have access to health care services based on their individual health needs as mandated by the current Departmental Policy Procedures on Health Care.

(a) (ii) The most prevalent disease amongst inmates is the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV).

(b) The following standard measures are implanted to prevent inmates from getting sick:

  • Screening of inmates on admission, during incarceration and on release for communicable diseases in order to facilitate early diagnosis and the initiation of treatment;
  • Provision of treatment for communicable and non-communicable diseases in compliance with the Standard Treatment Guidelines and Essential Medicines Lists (STGs and EML;
  • Provision of Primary Health Care services to inmates on a daily basis to address their health needs. Those that require secondary and tertiary levels of care are referred to the relevant external and sensitization sessions on various health conditions as well as maintenance of hygiene standards such as promotion of hand and respiratory hygiene for inmates with regard to COVID-19 through different media as well as implementation of infection prevention and control (IPC) measures;
  • Compliance to the Department of Correctional Services specific Standard Operating Procedures for Preparedness, Detection and Response to COVID-19 in order to contain and mitigate COVID-19 infections in the correctional facilities;
  • Administering of COVID-19 vaccines to the inmates who have agreed to be vaccinated in order to achieve herd immunity in the correctional facilities thus mitigating the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic; and
  • Provision of meals to inmates addressing their nutritional needs.

END

28 April 2022 - NW810

Profile picture: Breytenbach, Adv G

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

What are the reasons for the high withdrawal rate of over 50% of case enrolments for fraud and corruption (details furnished); (2) Whether he has found that a conviction success rate of five out of 13 cases in specialist units such as the (a) Specialised Commercial Crime Unit and (b) National Prosecuting Authority is acceptable; if not, what is the position in this regard; if so, (3) Whether the success rate does not represent serious underperformance; if not, what is the position in this regard; if so, what are the relevant details?

Reply:

1. In order to address the question with regard to the withdrawal rate it is necessary to indicate the details of the thirteen (13) finalised cases. Five (5) cases resulted in convictions, two (2) cases resulted in acquittals, and in the remaining six (6) cases prosecution was in fact declined.

The six (6) cases wherein prosecution was declined are as follows:

  •  

1.1 Lichtenburg CAS 259/8/2016

Background of Case (Summary)

Financial Intelligence Centre (“FIC”) identified several deposits into the bank account of the Chief Financial Officer of Ditsobotla Local Municipality from the following entities:

(a) Khoisan Roads Cc, Ipes-Utility Management Services (PTY) LTD, and Bay Breeze Trading 241 Cc.

(b) Two (2) of the abovementioned entities are service providers of Ditsobotla Local Municipality.

Outcome:

The main suspect has passed away, and prosecution was declined on 22 July 2021.

  •  

1.2 Potchefstroom CAS 81/05/2011

Background of Case (Summary)

Docket was opened by the Department of Education North West in Potchefstroom. The complainant alleges that two tenders were awarded to four companies during 2007. During investigations by the Department of Education it was discovered that two of these four companies were allegedly front companies.

Outcome:

The Deputy Public Protector (DPP) declined to prosecute due to insufficient

evidence to prosecute.

1.3 Hartbeespoortdam CAS 174/6/2016; and

1.4 Hartbeeesporrtdam CAS175/06/2016

Background of Case (Summary)

The docket was opened by the Department of Water and Sanitation North West at Hartbeespoort dam. The complainant alleged that the suspects contravened sec 57 (e) of the PFMA, by appointing a company to upgrade the road at Hartbeespoort dam and Lindleyspoort dam whereas the terms of the contract does not make provisions for such services. It was also found the same service provider allegedly had received other tenders without following tender procedures.

Outcome:

The DPP declined to prosecute due to insufficient evidence.

  •  

1.5 Mogwase CAS 204/03/2013

Background of Case (Summary)

The Department appointed a contractor to disburse an amount of R1.5m to create projects to alleviate poverty for 100 indigent’s community members but the contractor allegedly disbursed for only 22 indigents. The said contractor allegedly failed to return to the site to continue with the project as agreed in the service level agreement and stole the remaining amount.

Outcome:

The DPP declined to prosecute because the suspect is deceased.

  •  

1.6 Mmabatho CAS 270/05/2011

Background of Case (Summary)

The Department of Education advertised a tender seeking a motivational speaker who will render service to different districts within the province for a period of six (6) months. The MEC, Superintendent-General and officials connived with the appointed service provider to defraud the Department by inflating prices and claiming for services not rendered.

The case was before the Mahikeng High Court and was struck off the roll, on 25 August 2014 because the prosecutor needed to finalise the charge sheet and get permission from the DPP North West to re-enrol the matter.

Outcome:

Application for re-enrolment was submitted to the DPP who requested the DPCI to follow-up on certain aspects before a final decision could be made. On 21 September 2021, the DPP refused authorisation in terms of section 342A of Act 51 of 1977 for re-enrolment of the matter, and the matter is now deemed finalised.2. 

2. In regard to the remaining seven (7) finalised cases, prosecution was instituted and resulted in five (5) convictions and two (2) acquittals. This translates to a conviction rate of 71%. The details of the two (2) cases wherein the accused were acquitted are as follows:

2.1 Wolmaranstad CAS 92/12/2010

Background of Case (Summary)

The municipality advertised a tender for refuse trucks whereby the complainant was one of the service providers that bid for the tender. The complainant alleges that he was approached by the employees of the municipality whereby they promised to influence the bid committee to award the said tender to him for benefit.

Outcome:

Matter was before court on 24 April 2019. The accused were acquitted. The complainant was a single witness, as the second witness, his son, passed away prior to the proceedings. At the stage when the matter was partly heard, it happened on repeated occasions that an interpreter was not available for the complainant, and the Court refused further postponement of the matter in terms of section 342A of Act 51 of 1977, resulting in the acquittal of the accused.

  •  

2.2 Mahikeng CAS 165/01/2018

Background of Case (Summary)

The Department of Health advertised a vacancy for the Head of the Department (HoD) post. The appointed HoD misrepresented himself by submitting false information during his application. Information was received that the appointment was irregular as he did not meet the requirements as per the advert of the post. Preliminary investigations were conducted, and it was proved that there was a prima facie case that needs further investigation. 

Outcome:

The case was prosecuted in the High Court, and the accused was acquitted on 09 November 2021. The court found their versions to be reasonably possibly true.

3. It is submitted that, given the abovementioned context, the finalisation of these thirteen (13) cases does not represent serious under-performance.

END

 

 

 

28 April 2022 - NW919

Profile picture: Yako, Ms Y

Yako, Ms Y to ask the Minister of Justice and Correctional Services

Whether, with reference to the address of the National Director of Public Prosecutions (NDPP) to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts on 15 February 2022, wherein she indicated that the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) would be open to receiving private funding in order to do its work, the NDPP at any stage discussed the specified matter with him; if not, why not; if so, (2) Whether it is his department’s position to get private donors to fund the NPA; if not, what is the position in this regard; if so, what has he found would be the implications of this on the independence of the NPA?

Reply:

(1) and (2) Government has an obligation to ensure that state institutions are adequately resourced. To date, National Treasury has met this obligation in respect of the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA). As a result, the question of private donor funding does not arise. In this financial year, R1,2 billion has been allocated to the NPA. In the next financial year, the NPA is expected to advise the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development and National Treasury if a shortfall arises. Having addressed the issue of adequacy of funding, I have been informed of requests by the NPA regarding the acceptance of donor funding, its modalities, measures to ensure accountability and to address perceptions of interference with the independence of the NPA and actual interference with the independence of the NPA. These engagements have been ongoing with the Director-General of the Department as the Accounting Officer and the NPA. In this regard, a governance framework for the acceptance of donor funding is being considered.

In general, all private donor funding is processed through the Reconstruction Development Programme which falls under the administration of the National Treasury. In terms of this programme, domestic and foreign grants are received and dispensed according to strict guidelines, controls and oversight.

Should we have a scenario wherein the budget of NPA can only be supplemented by donor funding, the process mentioned above will apply. Safeguarding the independence of the NPA remains of utmost importance. A proper governance framework will be put in place to ensure that the NPA will be sufficiently insulated.

END

28 April 2022 - NW1145

Profile picture: Horn, Mr W

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

With reference to the closure of the Rustenburg Magistrates Court on 25 February 2022 due to health and safety considerations, what (a) are the reasons that his department failed to ensure that the necessary steps were taken in respect of the maintenance and refurbishment of the building to prevent its closure and (b) steps have been taken since the closure of the building to restore the right to occupy and use of the building?

Reply:

a) The Department of Justice and Constitutional Development (DoJ&CD) did not fail to ensure that necessary steps are taken in respect of the maintenance and refurbishment of the building to prevent the closure of Rustenburg Magistrate’s Court.

The Department has a delegation of R100 000.00 per incident as part of the day-to-day maintenance guidelines to ensure that the challenges experienced at the court are addressed. Below are the day-to-day maintenance issues addressed by the Department through the North West Regional Office:

  • Leaking pipes;
  • Repairs to ablution facilities;
  • Repairs to ceilings;
  • Security and office lights; and
  • Air conditioners.

However, the Rustenburg Magistrate Court was served with a prohibition notice by Bojanala Platinum District Municipality for reasons listed below:

  • Failure to provide the facility users (public and staff members) with an environment that is not harmful to their health and well-being.
  • Exposing facility users to asbestos fibre material that were found to be dripping from the ceiling within the facility passage and court area.
  • Exposing facility users to unsafe structural conditions of falling ceiling boards with asbestos lining, and failure to provide adequate ablution facilities for public and staff members.
  • Ignoring and allowing continued use of non-functional ablution facilities and use of same toilet facilities by both genders.

Therefore, the efforts made by the North West Regional Office delegation were not sufficient to address all the challenges highlighted above.

b) Rustenburg Magistrate Court is old and dilapidated, and there will always be facility issues and structural challenges due to aging of the building. After the closure of the court, an action plan monitored on weekly basis was developed to address the issues raised. Since the court reopened, service providers to attend to unhygienic toilets and contractors to fix the ceilings were appointed, and the facility is cleaned.

The Bojanala Platinum District Municipality confirmed that the Department has rectified the issues that were raised, lifted the notice and the court is currently operational.

Permanent solution of the maintenance challenges to the court:

The long-term solution for the court is to repair and renovate the building to eliminate unhygienic conditions of the premises that pose a health risk and nuisance to public health and safety.

  • The Rustenburg project started in March 2007 as a Repair and Renovations (planned maintenance) project registered and funded by Department of Public Works and Infrastructure (DPWI). The project went out on tender in 2012. The tender lapsed without the appointment of a service provider by DPWI. The DPWI did not fund the project in the 2013/14 financial year due to budget cuts.
  • The DPWI requested DoJ&CD to fund the project under capital budget in May 2013, and the DoJ&CD agreed to the proposal in July 2013, on condition that additional accommodation vacated by SARS at the adjacent building be added to the project, upgrading of the old court and all security measures and ICT requirements be included.
  • The project scope included:
  • Conversion of existing offices to accommodate officials within the court, including adjacent Public Protector and Family Advocate at Old SARS building;
  • Additional Family Courts at the Old SARS building;
  • Walk way adjoining the main court building to the Old SARS building;
  • Guardhouse;
  • Access for people living with disability;
  • Covered and uncovered Parking around both buildings;
  • Air-conditioning system;
  • Ablution facilities;
  • Plumbing system;
  • Repairs to walls, windows, doors, roof and floor skirting;
  • Installation of a lift at the main building; and
  • CCTV, alarm, PABX, Control Room and Server Room.
  • A Pre-Design Information Request (PDIR) was issued to the DPWI’s Town Planning Services (TPS) in September 2014 for purposes of clearing the site. The site clearance was issued in March 2015.
  • A Sketch Plan Committee meeting which was scheduled for 4 October 2016 turned into a technical meeting because the DPWI Professional Services Quantity Surveyor was not happy with the high project estimate/high building cost.
  • The project was re-advertised on 20 September 2019 and closed on 23 October 2019, the briefing meeting was held on 4 October 2019. The project validity period expired before appointment was concluded.
  • The project was re-advertised on 01 April 2021 and closed on 05 May 2021. The bid has been going back and forth between DPWI Regional Office and National Bid Adjudication Committee (NBAC). To date, no contractor is recommended or appointed. The bid evaluation process is underway at DPWI.

In light of the above, this is what the Department has been trying to do over the years but due to the procurement processes of DPWI, the DoJ&CD find itself in a dire situation.

The DPWI is currently going through the evaluation process for the third time, and DoJ&CD hopes that the contractor will be appointed in the 2022/23 financial year for the refurbishment of the court to be completed.

END

25 April 2022 - NW191

Profile picture: Lorimer, Mr JR

Lorimer, Mr JR to ask the Minister of Justice and Correctional Services

(a) What number of supplier invoices currently remain unpaid by (i) his department and (ii) each entity reporting to him for more than (aa) 30 days, (bb) 60 days, (cc) 90 days and (dd) 120 days, (b) what is the total amount outstanding in each case and (c) by what date is it envisaged that the outstanding amounts will be settled?

Reply:

a) For the period ending 31 January 2022, the analysis for the unpaid invoices of more than 30 days was as follows:

  1. (aa) >30 days
  1. (bb) >60 days

(i)(cc) > 90 days

(i)(dd)>120 days and above

No.of invoices

Total Value

No.of invoices

Total Value

No.of Invoices

Total Value

No.of Invoices

Total Value

3 205

R15 193 370.14

1078

R3 474 541.90

745

R3 014 842.40

2 507

R4 770 030.52

( c) It is envisaged that by the end of March 2022 the above-mentioned outstanding invoices would be paid.

END

25 April 2022 - NW1002

Profile picture: Horn, Mr W

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

With reference to his reply to question 3 on 2 March 2022 that he occasionally approves the temporary recruitment of specialists by the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA), specifically persons with suitable qualifications and experience, in terms of section 38 of the NPA Act, Act 32 of 1998, (a) who are the persons with whom agreements in terms of section 38 of the NPA Act are currently in place and (b) what are the details of the specific cases in which the aforesaid persons have been engaged to perform duties and functions for the NPA?

Reply:

a)  The details of the persons with whom the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) has entered into agreements in terms of section 38 of the NPA Act are as follows:

1. Adv. Z Matebese, SC has been appointed to prosecute in the matter of State versus R Mkhwebane, which is a perjury case against the Public Protector opened as per Hillbrow CAS 536/08/2019. The perjury charges are based on the adverse factual findings by the Constitutional Court relating to the honesty and integrity of the Public Protector as per Public Protector v South African Reserve Bank (CCT 107/2018) 2019 (6) SA 253 (CC). At the heart of the allegations against the accused, is the false statements she made regarding the purpose of the meeting she had with Presidency on 7 June 2017, and the discussions she had with the Presidency regarding the remedial action in her final report in respect of an investigation into loan funds made available by the South African Reserve Bank to an entity called Bankorp Ltd, which was later taken over by Absa Bank Ltd. The matter is of a high-profile nature and involved an important Chapter 9 institution.

2. Adv. Nazir Cassim, SC, Adv. Sandra Freese and Av Thabile Ngubeni have been appointed in respect of a High Court Case in Bloemfontein re State versus N Mokhesi and 15 Others (Case Number 45/2021). The accused, during pre-trial proceedings, gave the State notice of their intention to file certain motion applications on various issues, including but not limited to inter alia that the evidence before the Zondo Commission be excluded in the criminal trial, as well as an application pertaining to the applicability of sections 27 and 34 of the Prevention and Combating of Corrupt Activities Act 12 of 2004, and allegations in respect of the infringement of various rights of the accused. The accused referred to allegations of impropriety on the part of the State and National Prosecuting Authority (NPA), including Senior State Advocate De Nysschen and the investigation team. The aforementioned counsel had dealt with similar applications for the State. They were appointed to provide services for the duration of the criminal proceedings under the aforesaid case number and any other related matters and appeal processes that may arise out of the criminal proceedings against the accused.

3. Adv. Izak Pansegrouw has been appointed in respect of a High Court Case in Johannesburg regarding the State v Sylla Moussa. The case emanates from the former DSO where advocates James De Villiers and Pansegrouw were seized with the matter. Both have since resigned. The accused is a Guinean national who, during June 2006, was charged with sixteen (16) counts of fraud, alternatively, three (3) counts of theft and three (3) counts of money laundering in terms of the provisions of the Prevention of Organised Crime Act (POCA), Act 121 of 1998.

The prosecution of Mr Sylla Moussa is the second longest outstanding matter on the High Court roll in Johannesburg. The matter has been dragging for more than twelve (12) years due to various and incessant interlocutory applications brought by the accused. The Judge President of Gauteng, Honourable Justice Mlambo has already on numerous occasions expressed his concern and displeasure with the apparent problems finalising the matter. He has already allocated a specific Judge to case manage the matter.

This is a very complex fraud matter and voluminous in nature. The preamble of the indictment reflects the following: The accused was in control of two (2) accounts held by corporate entities with ABSA bank. The said accounts were labeled “credit accounts” and bore no-risk status, which meant that the accused could immediately make withdrawals against cheque deposits made into the account. Electronic transfers can only be made from such an account if sufficient funds exist in that account, even if only by way of cheque deposits. The accused allegedly conducted “cross fire fraud” which is described in the preamble to the indictment as follows:

a) No value cheques or cheques of insufficient value (“facilitation cheques”) would be deposited into the beneficiary bank account at ABSA and drawn against the drawer’s account at ABSA.

b) The lack of funds in the drawer’s account to support the amount depicted as per face value of the facilitation cheques, resulted in an artificial credit being created in the beneficiary bank account.

c) The drawing and deposit of the facilitation cheques would be recorded as debit and credit entries respectively. The balances and credits recorded on the respective bank statements of the beneficiary and drawer bank account would therefore not be representative of the genuine or underlying funds created by such transactions, but would be artificial and designed to mislead Absa into accepting that the accused or the corporate entities were conducting bona fide transactions or were involved in genuine and bona fide arm’s length business transactions while they were not.

4. Adv. Wim Trengove, SC, Adv. Andrew Breitenbach, SC,Adv Hephzibah Rajah and Adv. Ncumisa Mayosi were appointed in respect of STATE VERSUS JACOB G ZUMA AND THALES SOUTH AFRICA (PTY) LTD (CASE NUMBER CCD 30/2018) in the KZN High Court. The accused (Mr. JG Zuma) had on the first day of the criminal trial on 17 May 2021, given the State formal notice of his intention to file a special plea in terms of section 106(1)(h) of the CPA and section 35(3) of the Constitution, Act 108 of 1996, wherein he would seek a recusal of the lead prosecutor, Adv. Billy Downer, SC. In the light of the accused attack under oath against Adv. Downer personally, the latter had to file an answer on behalf of the State under oath. Counsel were required to settle such an answer and to argue the matter before the criminal court, as Adv. Downer would be disqualified from doing so himself. A substantial part of these allegations in the accused affidavit were strikingly similar to the allegations which Zuma made in his permanent stay application previously before court. The full court had either found the allegations to be without foundation or struck out the scandalous and vexatious allegations, including those against Adv. Downer personally, in the permanent stay ruling handed down on 11 October 2019. The counsel previously engaged, namely: Adv. Wim Trengove, SC, Adv. Andrew Breitenbach, SC, Adv. Hephzibah Rajah and Adv. Ncumisa Mayosi, had all worked on the preparation, drafting and arguing of the permanent stay application against Mr Zuma. They accordingly had an in-depth knowledge of the history of this matter and the relevant arguments he advanced in his special plea.

5. Adv. C.J Mouton SC, Adv. G Wolmarans and Adv. Chuma Mcoseli were appointed in respect of THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS GRAHAMSTOWN VERSUS TIMOTHY OMOTOSO & OTHERS in the Eastern Cape High Court.

The accused in the aforementioned matter stands before Court on the following charges:

a) COUNT 1

Managing an enterprise conducted though a pattern of racketeering activity (contravention of section 2 (1) (f) of the Prevention of Organised Crime Act 121 of 1998 as amended)

b) COUNT 2

Participating in the conduct of an enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity (contravening section 2(1)(e) of the Prevention of Organised Crime Act 121 of 1998 as amended)

c) COUNT 3, 5, 9, 14, 16, 20, 23, 26, 30, 33, 35, 38, 41, 45, 46, 48, 49, 51, 54, 56, 57, 60 and 62

Trafficking in persons for sexual purposes (contravening section 71 (1) of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences and Related Matters) Amendment Act 32 of 2007 as amended).

Alternatively, Involvement in Trafficking in persons for sexual purposes (contravening section 71(2) of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences and Related Matters) Amendment Act 32 of 2007 as amended).

4) COUNT 4, 7, 8, 11, 15, 18, 22, 25, 32, 37, 40, 43, 44, 52, 53 and 59

Rape (contravening section 3 of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences and Related Matters) Amendment Act 32 of 2007 as amended)

5) COUNT 6, 10, 13, 17, 21, 24, 27, 28, 29, 31, 34, 36, 47, 50, 55, 58, 61 and 63

Sexual assault (contravening section 5(1) of Criminal Law (Sexual Offences and Related Matters) Amendment Act 32 of 2007 as amended)

On 28 April 2021, the Defence filed an application in the Eastern Cape High Court for an order to declare a “mistrial” in the matter. When the Defence brought the said application, it became apparent that the allegations levelled against the prosecution team were quite serious and it became impossible for the State’s advocates seized with the criminal prosecution to continue dealing with the application in Court. In the circumstances, an application was made to the Honourable Minister of Justice and Correctional Services to approve the appointment of Adv. C.J Mouton SC, Adv. G Wolmarans and Adv. Chuma Mcoseli in terms of section 38(1) of the NPA Act 32 of 1998, since a determination had already been made that the matter should be opposed. The aforesaid section 38 Counsels have thus been appointed on behalf of the State to appear and argue the “mistrial” application.

6. THE STATE VERSUS CLIFFORD BISHOP AND OTHERS

The accused in the aforesaid matter are being prosecuted on a charge of arson, two (2) counts of murder and two (2) counts of attempted murder. Adv. Glenn Gregory Turner is prosecuting the matter. Adv. Turner has been on contract as a Senior State Advocate stationed at the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), Grahamstown. He was a member of the NPA for approximately 40 years. When his contract with the NPA expired on 30 June 2021, Adv. Turner requested his supervisor to complete the aforesaid matter, which at that stage was partly heard, in order to avoid inconvenience and costs.

7. THE STATE VERSUS XOLANI ZUNGU AND THREE (3) OTHERS

Adv. Greef was a Senior State Advocate attached to the Organised Crime Component, Durban. The aforesaid officer retired from the NPA with effect from 1 April 2021. She however declared to her supervisor willingness to return to complete the aforesaid matter without remuneration. The trial has been proceeding since April 2019, and the matter could not be finalised by the time Adv. Greef retired due to Covid-19 crisis.

The DPP held a view that it is in the interest of justice and expedient for Adv. Greef to continue prosecuting the matter, as she has been involved in the matter since its inception, and was au fair with all the challenges involved in the matter. The appointment of another prosecutor to continue with the matter would have potentially delayed the matter further, and involved unwarranted costs to the NPA.

  1. The table below provides details of specific cases the aforementioned persons have been engaged to perform duties and functions for the NPA:

Name of Supplier

Business Unit

Description of Service

Ministerial Approval date

Cost

Adv. Nazeer Ahmed Cassim, SC

ID

Estina Dairy Farm

19 May 2020

R3 000/h

Adv. Isak Zirk Pansegrouw

DPP Gauteng South

State v Sylla Moussa

21 May 2020

R1 800/h

Adv. Wendy Greeff

DPP KZN

State v Xolani Zungu and 3 others

31 Mar 2021

R0

Adv. Zinzile Zandisile Matebese, SC

NPS

State v Busisiwe Mkhwebane

13 Apr 2021

R2 350/h

Adv. Glenn Gregory Turner

DPP Grahamstown

State v Clifford Bishop and 2 others

06 Sep 2021

R0

Adv. Andrew M Breitenbach, SC

NPS

State v J Zuma and Thales South Africa

24 May 2021

R3 600/h

Adv. Ncumisa Mayosi

NPS

State v J Zuma and Thales South Africa

24 May 2021

R1 900/h

Adv. Hephzibah Rajah

NPS

State v J Zuma and Thales South Africa

24 May 2021

R2000/h

Adv. Wim Trengove

NPS

State v J Zuma and Thales South Africa

24 May 2021

R4 800/h

Adv. Christiaan Johannes Mouton, SC

DDPP Port Elizabeth

State v Timothy Omotoso and others

31 May 2021

R3 200/h

Adv. Chuma Emily Mcoseli

DDPP Port Elizabeth

State v Timothy Omotoso and others

31 May 2021

R600/h

Adv. G Wolmarans

DDPP Port Elizabeth

State v Timothy Omotoso and others

31 May 2021

R2 200/h

Adv. Nazeer Ahmed Cassim, SC

DPP Bloemfontein

State v N Mokhesi and 15 others (Asbestos)

17 December 2021

 

Adv. Sandra Freese

DPP Bloemfontein

State v N Mokhesi and 15 others (Asbestos)

17 December 2021

 

Adv. Thabile Ngubeni

DPP Bloemfontein

State v N Mokhesi and 15 others (Asbestos)

17 December 2021

 

25 April 2022 - NW924

Profile picture: Denner, Ms H

Denner, Ms H to ask the Minister of Justice and Correctional Services

With regard to the Government’s efforts to curb and eradicate gender-based violence in our society, what total number of (a) sexual offences courts have been fully established and are functioning throughout the Republic and (b) magistrates have been dedicated to such courts; (2) what total number of (a) cases have been brought before the dedicated courts and (b) the specified cases (i) have resulted in successful convictions and/or (ii) are still pending; (3) what (a) total number of offenders who have been found guilty were sentenced to imprisonment and (b) were the (i) minimum and (ii) maximum sentences handed down by the dedicated courts?

Reply:

(1)(a) From August 2013 up to 7 February 2020, the Department upgraded 106 courts into sexual offences courts in line with the MATTSO[1] Sexual Offences Courts (SOC) Model. Pursuant to the promulgation of section 55A of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences and Related Matters) Amendment Act, 2007 (Act No 32 of 2007) (the Act), these courts are now referred to as the MATTSO courts.

On 7 February 2020, section 55A of the Act was promulgated into law to introduce the statutory sexual offences courts that must be established and resourced in line with the Regulations relating to Sexual Offences Courts. The Department is in the process of converting the MATTSO courts into the section 55A sexual offences courts. However, this does mean that the MATTSO courts ceased to function, as section 55A (5) of the Act empowers the MATTSO courts and the rest of the courts for the regional divisions to deal with sexual offences matters, even though they are not established as the sexual offences courts yet.

On 30 March 2022, the Minister received a letter of concurrence from the Acting Chief Justice to designate courts where the section 55A sexual offences courts must be established. With this progress at hand, it is therefore anticipated that the first batch of these courts will be released in the next financial year (2022/23).

(b) As indicated in paragraph (1)(a) above, at present only the MATTSO courts are prioritising the adjudication sexual offences matters until the establishment of the section 55A sexual offences courts. The Department is unable to provide the exact number of magistrates dedicated to the MATTSO courts, as the allocation of such presiding magistrates falls under the purview of the administrative functions of the head of each regional division (referred to as the Regional Court President). In seeking to formalise the execution of this judicial function per regional division, section 55A (7) of the Act requires the head of each regional division to issue directives with the purpose of ensuring that sexual offences matters receive priority at each sexual offences court. It is therefore expected that the Regional Court Presidents will issue these directives upon the establishment of the section 55A sexual offences courts planned for the 2022/23 financial year.

(2) During the period 1 April 2021 to 28 February 2022, the 106 MATTSO courts registered the following cases according to the following metrics:

Reply to Question (2)(a)

Reply to Question (2)(b)(ii)

Province

No. of MATTSO Courts

Total No. of new cases registered

Total No. Pending cases

Eastern Cape

6

151

327

Free State

9

403

593

Gauteng

21

695

810

KwaZulu-Natal

12

425

700

Limpopo

10

142

333

Mpumalanga

7

246

507

Northern Cape

12

150

274

North West

14

161

506

Western Cape

15

349

936

TOTAL

106

2 722

4 986

(2)(b)(i) During the period 1 April 2021 to 28 February 2022, the NPA reported cases of sexual offences finalised with conviction as follows:

 

Total No of cases finalised with a verdict

Total No of Cases finalised with a Conviction

Percentage of Conviction

All provinces

4 040

3 008

74.5%

Courts attached to the 55 TCCs

1 190

910

76.5%

3. The Department is currently not collecting statistics according to the types of sentence imposed on convicted sex offenders, and this includes sentences imposed in terms of the minimum sentencing legislation referred to as the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1997 (Act 105 of 1997). However, the correction of this matter is already receiving attention. In January 2022, the Department established a Task Team constituted by statisticians, gender-based violence and femicide (GBVF) specialists and the system developers drawn from DoJ&CD, NPA, Legal Aid South Africa, the Integrated Justice System (IJS) and the judiciary to address gaps in the current data metrics of the Integrated Case Management System (ICMS): Criminal and to align this data repository to the new changes introduced by the recent 3 GBV Amendment Acts of 2021. The upgrading of the ICMS: Criminal will unfold in a phase-in approach which gives priority to the inclusion of the additional data metrics on sentencing, as part of Phase 1. The latter Phase is expected to be finalised in 2022/23 financial year.

While the Department’s ICMS upgrade is in progress, the NPA is collecting statistics on the imprisonment sentences imposed on convicted sex offenders, but in a limited scale. During the period 1 April 2021 to 28 February 2022, the NPA reported that the 55 Thuthuzela Care Centres (TCCs) recorded the following breakdown of sentences imposed exclusively on convicted rape offenders:

Offence

Type of Sentence

Number

RAPE

Life imprisonment

173

 

20-25 years imprisonment

89

 

10-19 years imprisonment

338

Please note that these statistics do not give the complete performance of all courts in the country, as it is limited only to those courts that are linked to the 55 TCCs.

  1. Ministerial Advisory Task Team on the Adjudication of Sexual Offences Matters

25 April 2022 - NW406

Profile picture: Horn, Mr W

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

What contract management measures are in place in his department to ensure that contract periods and/or durations do not end before a new service provider is appointed?

Reply:

In improving contract management at DCS, contract management at Department of Correctional Services, contract owners or End Users are reminded in writing twelve (12) months ahead and within six months another follow up is made in advance to ensure that contract periods or durations do not end before a new service provider is appointed.

In addition, this contract register also assist to indicate if the service provided is still required and what are the implications going forward.

The department also issued a directive that no extension of contract will be entered into as part of improving contract management and reducing irregular processes.

END

25 April 2022 - NW27

Profile picture: Msimang, Prof CT

Msimang, Prof CT to ask the Minister of Justice and Correctional Services

Given that in January 2022, there were alarming reports that five offenders attacked correctional services officials at the Mthatha Correctional Centre in the Eastern Cape, what is the latest progress on the internal investigations into the matter; (2) Whether any official reports have been submitted to him and/or his department; if not, what is the position in this regard; if so, what action will he take to increase security measures at the specified correctional centre.

Reply:

  1. A security incident was reported, the investigation has been completed and submitted to the delegated authority. The recommendations of the report were approved and are currently in implementation. Furthermore, a criminal case has been reported to the Police (SAPS case number 155/1/2022)
  2. Yes, a report was submitted. The centre has been stabilized and the 9four perpetrators identified in the incident have been subjected to disciplinary processes as prescribed. In addition, the offenders have been reclassified as high risk and transferred to an appropriate facility. The Emergency Support Team (EST) has been deployed to augment security in the Management Area. In addition, the Management Area is implementing an action plan to eliminate contrabands from entering the centre.

END

OBJECTIVE

STRATEGY

ACTIVITIES

To maintain a secure and safe environment that is conducive to the rehabilitation of inmates and the attendance of remand detainees in court processes.

Working with Intelligence Agencies

  • Collaborate with Intelligence agencies i.e., Secret Security Agency (SSA), South African Police Services (SAPS), Crime Intelligence, South African National Defence Force Intelligence;
  • Information sharing and actions to be taken on High Risk offenders, officials, members of the community and illegal activities taking place inside and outside correctional facilities.
 

Vetting and Screening of all Officials

  • All Officials to undergo vetting / screening
 

Profiling of Gang members

  • Photos are taken of all the tattoos on the offenders’ body. (Upper and Lower body);
  • Record all additions and changes to profiled tattoos with regular intervals/ as soon as it becomes known;
  • Utilisation of community profiling information;
  • Previous history of offences;
  • Maintenance of Electronics Record Systems for easy reference;
  • Track and trace including monitoring of re-offending patterns.
 

Management of Security Information

  • Identify gang members and high risk inmates upon admission. All warrants (J7) and relevant documents are screened upon admission;
  • All cases of intimidation/threats must be registered with the Head of Correctional Centre (HCC);
  • HCC must liaise with Area Commissioner and external law enforcement agencies such as the SAPS and SSA in cases of intimidation and threats;
  • Identified high risk inmates (syndicates/organised crime and high risk awaiting trials) should be transferred to Correctional Centres away from their power base.
 

Establishment of Security Committees

  • Committees have been established in order to effectively manage security activities in centres such as searching, segregation of offenders, discipline, etc. Hold monthly meetings to analyse incidents, security breaches and compliance to security protocol.

To facilitate the combatting approach to prevent ,reduce and eradicate disruptive groups (e.g. gangs) on the Management of Correctional Centres;

Interventions to discourage Gangsterism

  • Offenders that divulge security information leading to positive results are rewarded in line with Special Remission policy;
  • Disciplinary actions are taken against gang members and Staff for involvement in gang activities;
  • Criminal activities reported to law enforcement agencies;
  • Develop an Information gathering and processing capacity in order to implement a “Virtual Analytics environment “ linking collectors, exploiters , analysts, and stakeholders electronically , to improve its responsive to and the management of gangs.
 

Development and Implementation of an Information Management

 

To enable inter-sectorial co-operation (i.e. government and civil society) to promote Correctional Centre and Community safety

Establish Inter-Sectorial forums to promote Correctional Centre and community safety

  • Regular meetings between Head of Centres and Law Enforcement Agencies
  • DCS Management and officials participate in the following structures:
  • Provincial Joint Operational And Intelligence Structure (PROVJOINTS), National Joint Operational And Intelligence Structure (NATJOINTS), National Intelligence Coordinating Committee (NICOC), Anti-Gang Unit (AGU), Community Forums, Special Operations, etc.
  • Educate learners at Schools and Community members about the danger of engaging in Gang activities
  • Educate and train officials on how to infiltrate gang operations

To address the potential negative effects of incarceration;

Interventions to discourage Gangsterism:

• Inmates that divulge security information leading to positive results are rewarded in line with Special Remission policy;

• Disciplinary actions are taken against gang members and Staff for involvement in gang activities;

• Criminal activities reported to law enforcement agencies;

 

Development and Implementation of an Information Management System

  • Develop Information gathering and processing capacity in order to implement a “Virtual Analytics Environment “ linking collectors, exploiters , analysts, and stakeholders electronically , to improve responsiveness to the management of gangs .

To address the potential negative effects of incarceration;

Effective orientation of inmates on admission and during incarceration;

  • An orientation/ Information manual is availed to all offenders upon admission and during Case Management Committee processes (CMC);
  • Orientate all Remand Detainees on admission;
  • All inmates are informed of Unit rules upon admission and continuously thereafter;
  • All inmates are sensitised to the threats of Gangsterism on a continuous basis;
  • Implementation of Integrated Inmates Management System (IIMS).

To develop and build knowledge about Gangs and effective response in Gang Management to inform, review and monitor / improve strategies

Ongoing Research to improve knowledge on Gangs and other disruptive inmates groups and creating safer correctional centers

  • Department is currently in negotiation with Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) to sign an MoU to assist with research on various topics of which gangsterism is included.
 

Mitigation of gang activities

  • The process of training officials on basic intelligence and information gathering is underway;
  • Ensure separation of inmates involved in gang activities from the rest of inmate population, vulnerable inmates, first time offenders and offenders with further charges.

END

01 April 2022 - NW747

Profile picture: Tafeni, Ms N

Tafeni, Ms N to ask the Minister of Justice and Correctional Services

Whether there is an investigation underway to investigate allegations of (a) extortion and (b) bribery by officials of the Office of the Sheriff for Johannesburg South who refuse to enforce (i) court judgments and (ii) evictions; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details?

Reply:

The mandate to investigate complaints against sheriffs as well as to institute disciplinary proceedings lies with the South African Board for Sheriffs.

In terms of Section 44 (1) of the Sheriffs Act, 1986 (Act No. 90 of 1986), any complaint, accusation or allegation against a sheriff may be lodged with the Board in the prescribed manner.

The prescribed manner is in terms of the Regulations relating to Sheriffs, 1990, and includes the submission of formal complaint to the South African Board for Sheriffs in an affidavit-format and/or per the form as prescribed in the Regulations.

In terms of section 44 of the Sheriffs Act, 1986, the Board can charge a sheriff for improper conduct and institute a disciplinary proceeding.

In terms of Chapter IV of the Sheriffs Act, 1986 (Act No. 90 of 1986), the Minister of Justice and Correctional Services can suspend the sheriff from office under certain circumstances and usually only does so on the recommendation of the Board for Sheriffs as the regulatory authority.

It is therefore recommended that the Honourable Member addresses her concerns to the Chairperson of the South African Board for Sheriffs for investigation.

 

 

01 April 2022 - NW590

Profile picture: Nqola, Mr X

Nqola, Mr X to ask the Minister of Justice and Correctional Services

Whether, given that the alleged murderers of a certain person (name and details furnished) have been released on bail and that, in a way, this has compromised the confidence of persons in the justice system, and without getting to the merits of the case, he can assure the citizens of the Republic that justice will be done and that the persons responsible for the heartless murder will see their day in jail; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details?

Reply:

The National Director of Public Prosecutions has received the following information from the Director of Public Prosecutions, KwaZulu-Natal in whose jurisdiction the matter is being prosecuted:

  1. The evidence in the docket presents a strong case against the accused with at least two witnesses who made statements in terms of section 204 of the Criminal Procedure Act.
  2. There is further evidence corroborating their evidence independently.
  3. The matter is set down for trial due to start on 18 August 2022. At present, the State is ready to proceed and witnesses will be called to present evidence in pursuit of a successful prosecution.
  4. The granting of bail does not amount to the weakness of the state’s case despite the ruling by the Magistrate, which the State is intending to appeal.
  5. The State opposed bail on 21 May 2019 after the accused were arrested and bail was refused. On 03 February 2022 the accused appeared at Ixopo Magistrates’ Court where they applied for bail on new facts. The State opposed bail and the accused were nonetheless granted bail on 15 February 2022. The accused were each granted bail of R5000. The court found that exceptional circumstances existed which in the interest of justice permitted the granting of bail, based essentially on the delay in the commencement of the trial and issues related to the facts of the case. The court decided on its own which conditions to impose and the amount of bail without engaging the parties thereto. The State has indicated its intention to appeal and the record of the bail proceedings is being transcribed. The accused are required as bail conditions to attend the criminal proceedings at all times, report to identified police stations on Mondays and Fridays and reside in identified places, not to enter the jurisdiction of Umzimkhulu during the subsistence of the criminal proceedings against them, not to communicate with state witnesses and to hand over their passports.

 

31 March 2022 - NW427

Profile picture: Msimang, Prof CT

Msimang, Prof CT to ask the Minister of Justice and Correctional Services

In view of media reports on his address at the Constitutional Rights Conference in Cape Town in February 2022, during which he stated that the mandate of Legal Aid South Africa (LASA) will be expanded to assist victims of evictions, what steps have been taken by his department to extend the statutory scope of LASA; (2) Whether there has been any investigation by his department on the additional capacity that may be required by LASA to fulfil the additional services; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details?

Reply:

1. In view of media reports on his address at the Constitutional Rights Conference in Cape Town in February 2022, during which he stated that the mandate of Legal Aid South Africa (LASA) will be expanded to assist victims of evictions, what steps have been taken by his department to extend the statutory scope of LASA;

1. Legal Framework

In accordance with the Legal Aid SA’s mandate and the objects as provided in the Legal Aid South Africa Act, 39 of 2014:

1.1 Regulation 17 determines as follows in respect of the granting of legal aid in terms of the Restitution of Land Rights Act:

“17. (1) Legal Aid South Africa may grant legal aid for cases under the Restitution of Land Rights Act, 1994 (Act No. 22 of 1994) if the Land Claims Commissioner—

(a) makes funds available to Legal Aid South Africa to fund the matter;

or

(b) is the opposing party to the litigation or possible litigation.

(2) Legal aid may not be granted for the claim lodgement and investigation under the Restitution of Land Rights Act, 1994.”

1.2. Regulation 18 provides for legal aid for persons affected by the Land Reform Act, the Extension of Security of Tenure Act, and the Prevention of Illegal Occupation and Eviction from Land Act and reads as follows:

“18. (1) Legal aid may be granted to persons affected by the Land Reform (Labour Tenants) Act, 1996 (Act No. 3 of 1996), the Extension of Security of Tenure Act, 1997 (Act No. 62 of 1997) and the Prevention of Illegal Occupation and Eviction from Land Act, 1998 (Act No. 19 of 1998): Provided that the granting of legal aid in terms of this regulation is subject to the making available of funds by the relevant government department.”

2. Steps taken-

2.1 In December 2019, the Inter-Ministerial Committee on Land Reform resolved to:

  • Establish the Land Court to deal with all land related matters and that Legal Aid SA should be mandated and funded to provided legal representation to persons who are not able to afford their own legal representation; and
  • Recommended the transfer of the Land Rights Management Facility (LRMF) from the Department of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development (DALRRD) to Legal Aid SA.
  •  

2.2 The Land Court Bill was introduced into Parliament on 01 May 2021, and confirmed the intended transfer of the legal representation function to Legal Aid SA at a Ministerial press briefing of 01 March 2021.

2.3 A Committee consisting of the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development (DoJ&CD), Department of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development as well as Legal Aid SA was set up in February 2020 to implement the transfer of the Land Rights Management Facility to Legal Aid SA including compliance with the requirements of the PFMA for the transfer of the function.

2.4 A Task Team constituted by Legal Aid SA, Land Rights Facility Management of the Department of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development as well as the NS Attorneys started the co-management of the Land Rights Management Facility from July 2021 to ensure a smooth transfer of the functions to Legal Aid SA on 01 January 2022. During this process, an assessment of the land matters handled by LRMF was conducted and this informed the organizational capacity/structure and funding which will be required by Legal Aid SA to deliver the additional mandate.

2.5 There are three (3) specific areas where Legal Aid SA is required to take over the function from the LRMF to provide legal services to litigants: Land Restitution, Labour Tenants and ESTA Evictions. Therefore, Legal Aid SA has a mandate to assist farm occupiers, labour tenants and the restitution claimants.

2.5.1 Third, Legal Aid SA will work in collaboration with other Departments (such as the Department of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development, Department of Co-operative Governance and Traditional Affairs and Department of Human Settlements) to assist the victims of evictions, labour tenants or land claimants.

2.5.2 Second, Legal Aid SA will challenge the constitutionality of any sections in the Extension of Section of Tenure Act 62 of 1997, the Land Reform (Labour Tenants) Act 3 of 1996 and Restitution of Land Rights Act 22 of 1994 that are not in line with the constitution.

2.5.3 Firstly, Legal Aid SA will instruct private lawyers to oppose evictions and to challenge any constructive evictions;

2.6  Legal Aid SA took over the management of the legal representation component of the Land Rights Management Facility from 01 January 2022.

2.7 The Intergovernmental Task team chaired by the DoJ&CD facilitated the transfer of the LRMF and transitional arrangements in accordance with the Department of Public Service and Administration Transfer of Functions and National Treasury Regulations. The Minister of Agriculture Rural Development and Land Reform submitted a motivation to the Minister of Public Service. Administration, with the support of the Minister of Justice and Correctional Services motivating for the transfer of the LRMF Function with the necessary Budget. The Minister of Public Service Administration in February 2022 approved the transfer to the function and submitted same to the Minister of Finance for the implementation of the Budget Transfer. National Treasury is currently in the process of implementing the transfer of the Budget to the baseline budget of Legal Aid SA for 2022/23.

2. Whether there has been any investigation by his department on the additional capacity that may be required by LASA to fulfil the additional services; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details?

Investigation on additional capacity and staffing:

a) During the co-management process as indicated in paragraph 2.4 above, the investigation as to the additional capacity was assessed based on the current case load and the outcome of the investigations informed the structure below.

b) The staffing structure currently consists of the Legal Executive: Land Rights Management, 4 Senior Legal Practitioners and Administrative Staff – 1 Personal Assistant, 1 Administrative Officer (Account Capture), 1 Taxation/Verification Officer, 1 Finance Officer and 2 temporary Administrative Officers to assist with capturing R172M in commitments.

c) The Legal Executive: Land Rights Management is responsible for overseeing and monitoring the performance of the Land Rights Management Unit.

d) It is vital to mention at this stage that Legal Aid SA will implement this project in two phases. The first phase as mentioned above, is interim, and the second phase is permanent.

e) Going forward the legal services delivery model for land rights matters will be implemented as follows, and therefore additional capacity will be required

f) Legal Aid SA plans to employ its own staff in each province to undertake land rights matters, as opposed to the judicare system currently used. This will assist in reducing the contingent liability substantially as well as the ongoing costs of outsourcing these matters to practitioners in private practice. It will also assist in ensuring that quality legal services are provided to farm occupiers, labour tenants and land claimants. The legal practitioners from Legal Aid SA will be trained and equipped with the necessary skills and resources. The Legal Aid SA quality assurance programme will be applied in land rights matters.

g) The Provinces, as currently serviced by Legal Aid SA, will be divided into regions. The number of regions to be established and legal practitioners to be allocated to each region is determined by considering the number of active cases inherited by Legal Aid SA from the LRMF, as well as an anticipated increase in the numbers of land claims matters to be referred to the Land Claims Court as indicated by the Chief Land Claims Commissioner.

h) The following table summarises the proposed permanent structure and the staff of the Legal Aid SA Land Rights Management Unit.

Item No.

Province

No. of Regions

Staffing Per Region

 

Kwa-Zulu Natal

4

  • One (1) Supervisory Legal Practitioner
  • One (1) Senior Legal Practitioner
  • One (1) Junior Practitioner
  • One (1) Paralegal
 

Mpumalanga

4

  • One (1) Supervisory Legal Practitioner
  • One (1) Senior Legal Practitioner
  • One (1) Junior Practitioner
  • One (1) Paralegal
 

Western Cape

4

  • One (1) Supervisory Legal Practitioner
  • One (1) Senior Legal Practitioner
  • One (1) Junior Practitioner
  • One (1) Paralegal
 

Gauteng

3

  • One (1) Supervisory Legal Practitioner
  • One (1) Senior Legal Practitioner
  • One (1) Paralegal
 

Eastern Cape

3

  • One (1) Supervisory Legal Practitioner
  • One (1) Senior Legal Practitioner
  • One (1) Paralegal
 

Free State

3

  • One (1) Supervisory Legal Practitioner
  • One (1) Senior Legal Practitioner
  • One (1) Paralegal
 

Limpopo

3

  • One (1) Senior Attorney
  • One (1) Junior Attorney
  • One (1) Paralegal
 

North West

3

  • One (1) Supervisory Legal Practitioner
  • One (1) Senior Legal Practitioner
  • One (1) Paralegal
 

Northern Cape

2

  • One (1) Supervisory Legal Practitioner
  • One (1) Senior Legal Practitioner
  • One (1) Paralegal

END

31 March 2022 - NW813

Profile picture: Horn, Mr W

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

With regard to the announcement he made in October 2021, detailing the names of the members of the Rationalisation Committee in respect of the High Courts of the Republic under the chairpersonship of Retired Deputy Chief Justice Dikgang Moseneke, which was to finalise its report by April 2022, what are the details of (a) all meetings held by the specified committee, (b) the progress made with the committee’s work and (c) all expenses incurred and/or payments made to date in relation to the committee’s work?

Reply:

a) The Committee on the Rationalisation of Areas and Judicial Establishments of the Division of the High Court of South Africa held the following meetings:

(i) Virtual meeting held on 13 July 2021. Introductory meeting with Deputy Director-General Court Services.

(ii) Virtual meeting held 29 September 2021: Discussion of the draft Road map with the DDG Court Services

(iii) Physical meeting 5 November 2021 at Protea Hotel Fire and Ice, Pretoria: Department’s detailed submission to the Committee outlining the following aspects:

  • The challenges pose by pre-1994 areas of jurisdiction of the high courts; in particular, the Eastern Cape and Gauteng divisions
  • Proposed changes to the current areas of jurisdiction of the high courts; and
  • Proposed additional local seats with a view to increase access to justice.

(iv) It is expected that the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) and the Office of the Chief Justice (OCJ) will present their submission regarding the above, at the date to be confirmed.

b) The Committee was expected to submit its Interim Report on or before 15 October 2021 and its final report by 31 December 2021. Subsequent to the presentation by DoJ&CD the Committee then had a sense of the work to be completed and then it was agreed that the Terms of Reference be amended to provide for new dates for submission. In terms of the Committee’s roadmap the OCJ and NPA were supposed to make similar submission to the Committee. There was hesitation from both the OCJ and NPA which derailed the commitments made on the roadmap. The Terms of Reference (ToRs) were thus amended to provide for new dates regarding the submission of reports by the Committee. The dates in the new ToRs were revised to 15 April 2022 for the submission of its Interim Report, and 30 July 2022 for the submission of its Final Report.

c) Expenses incurred to date

Item

Amount

Venue for meeting (Protea Fire and Ice, Pretoria)

R16 524.00

Accommodation

R4 478.77 (Only done for one members for 2 nights. Others members did not require accommodation)

Flights

R9 233.49 (for 2 members)

Shuttle

R2 732.24

Ten (10) Laptops

R232 387.10

Ten (10) Wi-Fi Routers

R53 880.00

Printers

R56 575.00

Payments to Members of the Committee

R767 103.95

Total

R1 142 914.55

31 March 2022 - NW854

Profile picture: De Villiers, Mr JN

De Villiers, Mr JN to ask the Minister of Justice and Correctional Services

What total amount in Rand has been spent on (a) catering, (b) entertainment and (c) accommodation for (i) him, (ii) the Deputy Ministers and (iii) officials of his department since 29 May 2019?

Reply:

The tables below provide details of the total amount spent by the Minister, Deputy Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development, and the officials of the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development on catering, entertainment and accommodation since 29 May 2019:

(i) Minister and Personnel

Description

2019/2020

2020/2021

2021/2022

Total

a) Catering

R7 423.00

-

-

R7 423.00

b) Entertainment

R263.00

R4 235.60

-

R4 498.60

c) Accommodation

R1 536 203.67

R537 007.44

R820 987.34

R2 894 198.45

 

R1 543 889.67

R541 243.04

R820 987.34

R2 906 120.05

(ii) Deputy Minister and Personnel

Description

2019/2020

2020/2021

2021/2022

Total

a) Catering

R1 424.85

-

R480.00

R1 904.85

b) Entertainment

R3 145.00

-

R2 088.10

R5 233.10

c) Accommodation

R249 451.10

R53 141.74

R108 312.00

R410 904.84

 

R254 020.95

R53 141.74

R110 880.10

R418 042.79

(iii) Departmental

Description

2019/2020

2020/2021

2021/2022

Total

a) Catering

R5 883 618.80

R778 208.35

R1 519 545.11

R8 181 372.26

b) Entertainment

-

-

-

-

c) Accommodation

R119 119 041.10

R75 124 425.40

R87 709 342.92

R281 952 809.42

 

R125 002 659.90

R75 902 633.75

R89 228 888.03

R290 134 181.68

31 March 2022 - NW748

Profile picture: Tafeni, Ms N

Tafeni, Ms N to ask the Minister of Justice and Correctional Services

What has he found to be the reason that the Office of the Sheriff for Johannesburg South is refusing to enforce court order judgment of Case Number: 47/2021 (details furnished)?

Reply:

The mandate to investigate complaints against sheriffs as well as to institute disciplinary proceedings lies with the South African Board for Sheriffs.

In terms of Section 44 (1) of the Sheriffs Act, 1986 (Act No. 90 of 1986), any complaint, accusation or allegation against a sheriff, may be lodged with the Board in the prescribed manner.

The prescribed manner is in terms of the Regulations relating to Sheriffs, 1990, and includes the submission of formal complaint to the SA Board for Sheriffs in an affidavit-format and/ or per the form as prescribed in the Regulations.

In terms of section 44 of the Sheriffs Act, 1986, the Board can charge a sheriff for improper conduct and institute a disciplinary proceeding.

In terms of Chapter IV of the Sheriffs Act, 1986 (Act No. 90 of 1986), the Minister of Justice and Correctional Services, can suspend the sheriff from office under certain circumstances and usually only does so on the recommendation of the Board for Sheriffs as the regulatory authority.

It is therefore recommended that the Honourable Member address her concerns to the Chairperson of the South African Board for Sheriffs for investigation.

31 March 2022 - NW699

Profile picture: Breytenbach, Adv G

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

In light of the fact that faulty court machinery has been identified as the reason a rape case of a certain person (name furnished), which has been dragging for nearly two years, was postponed yet again in early February in the Parow Regional Court and the reason for the umpteenth postponement was that the stenotype machine was not working, which is a perennial problem in the specified court and others countrywide, what is he and/or his department doing to ensure that proper (a) contracts and (b) maintenance plans for the machinery are in place to ensure optimum utilisation of court time?

Reply:

The Department regrets the inconvenience caused to all victims of crime, and in particular, to victims of gender-based violence and femicide for further subjecting them to trauma as a result of more postponements. The Department is committed to upholding and respecting the rights of all victims of crime and ensuring that their matters are heard and finalized as soon as possible.

The Supply Chain Management Unit in the Department worked very hard with National Treasury to find the most expedient method of procurement so that we can re-start the service and the maintenance program. A reputable service provider that is approved by the manufacturer of our court recording technology has since been appointed for a period of twelve months to repair and maintain the court recording and sexual offences systems in the courts.

The service provider has already commenced with the processes to repair damaged and faulty equipment by adopting a risk-based approach that starts with courts with highest calls logged and dysfunctional equipment. Stakeholders have also been consulted to identify courts with greatest need and said priority lists have been furnished to the service provider. Site assessments of various courts to diagnose the problem and repair or order parts where necessary are already in motion and in some courts the systems are already in operation.

Court Services’ senior managers are meeting with the service provider on a weekly basis to monitor progress and ensure that we are on track. At the same time, the procurement process for a long-term solution has begun. A bid specifications committee has been appointed and the committee has already drawn up the specifications that will soon go out on tender for a three-year period.

In order to avoid a similar mishap from happening in the future, the Department is strengthening the Contract Management Unit and reviewing all current contracts that are due to expire within a period of eight months to ensure that we can procure on time and thus avoid disruptions and have optimally functional systems.

END

31 March 2022 - NW428

Profile picture: Msimang, Prof CT

Msimang, Prof CT to ask the Minister of Justice and Correctional Services

In light of a recent inter-departmental report on the implementation of the Child Justice Act, Act 75 of 2008, submitted to the Portfolio Committee on Justice and Correctional Services, which indicated that there has been an alarming increase of 55% in the total number of rape charges against children compared to the previous reporting period and considering the seriousness of the situation, what (a) steps will be taken by his department to investigate the reasons for the exponential increase in the rape charges and (b) co-operation will be pursued with other departments to find solutions to this dire state of affairs?

Reply:

As reported in the 2020/21 Departmental Annual Report on the Child Justice Act, 2008 our courts recorded a 55% increase in the number of rape charges against children who appeared in preliminary inquiries, compared to the previous reporting period. The percentage calculation is based on a percentage contribution of rape to all the charges recorded during the 2020/21 reporting period compared with the percentage contribution of rape to all the charges recorded during the 2019/20 reporting period.

(a) What steps will be taken by the department to investigate the reasons for the exponential increase in the rape charges?

In addressing the alarming rise in sex crimes perpetrated by children, the Department has commenced with a two pronged approach at provincial and national levels:

(a)(i) The Department has already identified 6 provinces, which recorded the highest numbers of rape charges against children appearing in preliminary enquiries, as the focal areas where primary interventions must be undertaken, and these are: Mpumalanga (50%), North West (45%), Limpopo (36%), Eastern Cape (30%), Free State (30%) and KwaZulu-Natal (29%). Each of these provinces has a fully-functional multisectoral Provincial Child Justice Forum- tasked to monitor the provincial implementation of the Child Justice Act. Each Forum will conduct an investigation to identify the core drivers of the high numbers of child sex offenders in its province so as to develop tailor-made interventions for prevention, response and care by the end of May 2022. These plans must be correlated with the National Strategic Plan on Gender-based Violence and Femicide (NSP GBVF) (2020- 2030), which seeks to end GBVF and sex crimes in the country, whether perpetrated by adults or children.

(b)(ii) The Department has also considered the recent research study on Children Seeking Justice: Safeguarding the rights of child offenders in the South African Criminal Court[1], which reveals the increasing number of children who commit sexual offences against other children. The study found that many child offenders fall into the highest vulnerability category because of previous sexual abuse victimization, apart from neglect and abuse. On 22 February 2022 the Directors- General Intersectoral Committee on Child Justice requested the National Technical Intersectoral Committee on Child Justice to consider the recent studies on this issue as the basis on which the national action plan for intervention can be developed. This is to ensure that government actions target the identified root causes of the problem. The Departments of Social Development and Basic Education will be the key implementers of this Plan since they are the key drivers of the early crime prevention programmes for children and parents. The two Departments are represented at all levels of child justice and the NSP collaborations. This Plan will be the enhancement of the NSP GBVF to avoid the unnecessary duplication of government interventions.

(b) What co-operation will be pursued with other departments to find solutions to this dire state of affairs?

(b)(i) The Department intends to use the existing collaborations of the NSP GBVF to find and execute solutions, as aspired by the NSP. The NSP is a multisectoral strategic framework to realise a South Africa free from gender-based violence and femicide. Its collaborations draw representations from a wide spectrum of government and civil society organisations at national, provincial and local levels. It targets all perpetrators of GBVF, irrespective of age. Among its collaborations is the GBVF Inter-Ministerial Committee, chaired by the Minister of Women, Youth and Persons with Disabilities, and tasked by Cabinet to give political oversight in the implementation of the NSP.

Understanding the array of social ills that are the core drivers of child offending in South Africa, the NSP GBVF recognises children who experience violence within families and institutions as the main target group for intervention. Poverty, malnutrition, racism, bullying, drug addictions, corporal punishment at home, dysfunctional families, poor/lack of parenting are some of the dominant and fundamental breeding foundations for GBVF child offending. Pillar 2 of the NSP GBVF provides key activities for prevention and restoration of social fabric which include:

  • the adoption and roll out of school-based gender-based violence prevention programmes;
  • GBV prevention integrated into the roll out of Early Childhood Development programme; and
  • parenting and early childhood development programmes to build non-violent and gender transformative approaches to parenting.

These NSP indicators are spot-on towards ending child offending in sex crimes and GBVF-related crimes. The Department therefore does not intend to re-invent the wheel as the government and civil society formations of the child justice sector are already the key stakeholders in the implementation of the GBVF NSP.

The NSP stakeholders, including the DoJ&CD, report performance to the Presidency via the Department of Women, Youth and Persons with Disabilities on monthly basis. The reports are signed by the respective accounting officers or heads of government institutions. The Directors-General Intersectoral Committee on Chid Justice will receive similar reports for monitoring purposes.

Songca, R. 2019. Children seeking justice: safeguarding the rights of child offenders in South African Criminal court. De Jure Law Journal. p. 316-334. Available at http://dx.doi/org/10.17159/2225-7160/2019/v52a17

31 March 2022 - NW882

Profile picture: Krumbock, Mr GR

Krumbock, Mr GR to ask the Minister of Justice and Correctional Services

What (a) is the total number of incidents of (i) sexual harassment and (ii) sexual assault that were reported in his department (aa) in each of the past three financial years and (bb) since 1 April 2021, (b) number of cases (i) were opened and concluded, (ii) were withdrawn and (iii) remain open or pending based on the incidents and (c) sanctions were meted out against each person who was found guilty?

Reply:

(a) The total number of incidents of sexual harassment is 42.(a) 

(i) (aa)

2018/19

2019/20

2020/21

 

5

9

11

(b) (i)

Concluded

Concluded

Concluded

 

2

6

3

(b)(ii)

Withdrawn

Withdrawn

Withdrawn

 

None

1

1

(b)(iii)

Pending

Pending

Pending

 

3

2

7

(c)

Sanction

Sanction

Sanction

 

1- Dismissal

1-One month suspension without salary.

2- Two month suspension without salary.

4- Not guilty

1- Final written warning.

1- Verbal warning

1- Not guilty 

 

 

(a)(i)(bb) since 01 April 2021

 

(a)(i)(bb)

Since 01 April 2021

 

17

(b)(i)

Concluded

 

5

(b)(ii)

Withdrawn

 

1

(b)(iii)

Pending

 

11

(c)

Sanction

 

2- Dismissal

1- One month suspension without salary

1- Not guilty

1- No outcome (contract of complainant lapsed prior to investigation being finalised

 

END

31 March 2022 - NW678

Profile picture: Van Minnen, Ms BM

Van Minnen, Ms BM to ask the Minister of Justice and Correctional Services

In view of the fact that the Prosecution Policy and Policy Directives were last reviewed in 2014, and given the shifts that occur over time, particularly in the cybercrime realm, and the issues emanating from the Judicial Commission of Inquiry into Allegations of State Capture, Corruption and Fraud in the Public Sector including Organs of State, on what date is it anticipated that the (a) policies and (b) directives will be reviewed?

Reply:

It is not correct that the Prosecution Policy and Policy Directives were last reviewed in 2014. While the Prosecution Policy is considered for review from time to time, the nature of the policy is such that it is and would be expected to remain fairly constant.

a) The Prosecution Policy is aimed at promoting the considered exercise of authority by prosecutors and contributing to the fair and even-handed administration of the criminal laws. The last amendment made to the policy was adopted in June 2013, where a paragraph was inserted dealing with the prosecution of corruption of foreign public officials. The rest of the policy remained the same. The last review of the entire policy was in 2020 and the view was held that no amendments were necessary. There is currently a process underway to consider the addition of a new part to deal with mechanisms for non-trial resolution of matters.

b) The Policy Directives are subject to an ongoing review process and relevant portions are amended from time to time in accordance with judicial decisions, changes in legislation and practical considerations. While the complete directives are considered from time to time, most recently in 2020, individual parts have been amended, with the most recent being on 1 July 2021. The review of the directives is an ongoing process. There are a number of parts currently under review.

END

31 March 2022 - NW677

Profile picture: Van Minnen, Ms BM

Van Minnen, Ms BM to ask the Minister of Justice and Correctional Services

In view of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) dealing with the referral process from the Special Investigating Unit to the National Prosecuting Authority that is still in a draft format, and in light of the fact that the SA Police Service (SAPS) and the Directorate for Priority Crime Investigations (DPCI) need to be included in the final MOU which still stands to be completed, (a) what are the reasons that the SAPS and the DPCI have not yet been included in the MOU and (b) on what date does he envisage the process will be completed?

Reply:

a) Although the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) dealing with the referral process, which was signed during 2017, is between the Special Investigating Unit (SIU) and National Prosecuting Authority (NPA), efforts to amend same with the view to include the South African Police Service (SAPS) were undertaken by the NPA since 2020. A draft MoU to this effect was submitted by the Directorate for Priority Crime Investigations (DPCI) to the SAPS National Commissioner to sanction, as it was envisaged that the less complex criminal investigations emanating from the SIU referrals would have to be conducted by the SAPS General Detectives.

In a communication dated 19 February 2021, the National Commissioner, in response to the National Director of Public Prosecutions (NDPP)’s formal communication, requesting that the process of the signing of the MoU should be fast tracked, advised that because of “the lack of clarity in respect of the mandate between the various investigative capacities, command and control, criteria for the referral of the cases to the SAPS and the DPCI, and proper process flow/case referral mechanisms, the draft MoU could not be signed in its current form, as it could not be translated into an actionable implementation plan”.

The National Commissioner further advised that he directed that the “SAPS ought to first work on the draft MoU, to ensure that the views of the SAPS, inclusive of the DPCI, are aligned and translated into a practical working document”. In addition, that “all parties to the MoU would only meet as a collective for a workshop, in order to draft an agreement that addresses the needs and objectives of all parties concerned, once the process is finalised”.

The NPA has, on a number of occasions, enquired from the DPCI on the progress of the process as outlined above, the latest of which was on 15 February 2022. The response received is that there are no new developments, and that the mandates of DPCI and Detective Service must still be clarified.

b) On what date does he envisage the process will be completed?

The NPA is unable to commit to a date during which the process will be completed, as that is dependent on the SAPS’ process as outlined above.

31 March 2022 - NW676

Profile picture: Van Minnen, Ms BM

Van Minnen, Ms BM to ask the Minister of Justice and Correctional Services

With reference to a recent meeting of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, where the Director of Public Prosecutions claimed that they had a 90% conviction rate with regard to high-profile corruption matters but, while the decision to prosecute is reviewed by a court, the decision not to prosecute is not open to review, what (a) number of matters classified as high-profile corruption cases have not been prosecuted after investigation by the Directorate for Priority Crime Investigations and (b) is the true statistics for convictions in this class of crime?

Reply:

a) The Anti-Corruption Task Team (ACTT) defines “high-profile corruption cases” as those corruption cases that have been selected by the Case Management Committee to be part of the ACTT Priority List. The aforementioned case management committee consist of members from various institutions including the Directorate for Priority Crime Investigations (DPCI), Special Investigating Unit (SIU), Financial Intelligence Centre (FIC), National Prosecuting Authority (NPA), National Treasury and Department Public Service and Administration (DPSA).

The case intake criteria have been reviewed by the ACTT Executive Committee (EXCO), and consists of a number of variables such as the monetary value, profile of the accused such as Municipal Managers, Accounting Officers and alike, government priorities based on sectors identified to be vulnerable and the crime type, which are scored according to set criteria in order to determine if any particular matter should be adopted onto the list.

The statement made as part of this parliamentary question, that “a decision not to prosecute is not open to review”, is not factually correct as a number of options are open to any complainant or person with material interest in the matter. In terms of section 6(b) of the Criminal Procedure Act, Act 51 of 1977, such persons may apply for a “nolle prosequi” certificate and decide to institute a private prosecution. Apart from this review procedure in court, any party dissatisfied with a decision of any member of the prosecution authority relating to a decision to prosecute or not to prosecute, may make representations to the relevant Director of Public Prosecutions and/or the National Director of Public Prosecutions.

Furthermore, it is not commonly known that the decisions not to prosecute are explained and discussed amongst the members within the ACTT Case Management Committee where the reason(s) for the decision is/are analysed, and methods considered to see if any future preventative steps can lead to another result.

The following provide a breakdown of the methods of finalisation of priority cases over the past ten (10) years:

1. Verdict Cases:

a) Convictions were obtained in sixty-one (61) trial cases; and

b) There were eight (8) acquittals.

2. Forty-five (45) matters were declined to prosecute.

3. Matters currently under investigation/enrolled:

a) Seventy-two (72) cases are in court, of which nineteen (19) are partly heard. This means that a decision to prosecute was taken in 75% of the aforementioned cases.

b) True statistics for convictions in this class of crime?

Sixty-one (61) convictions related to cases in which:

1. A total of ninety-one (91) accused were convicted from the ninety-nine (99) accused prosecuted and sixty-one (61) of the sixty-nine (69) cases resulted in a conviction. This translates to:

a) 92% conviction rate on persons convicted

b) 88% conviction rate on number of cases prosecuted.

The conviction rates are only measured against the cases and/or the accused prosecuted, as various matters may not be prosecuted for reasons outside the control of the investigating authorities and the prosecution authority.

The aim is not to see how many convictions may be achieved, but to ensure that justice is done, and also seen to be done, in all matters. It is therefore important to understand that after thorough investigations, there may not be sufficient evidence to institute prosecution or for other reasons, such as the unavailability of witnesses or accused.

END

31 March 2022 - NW295

Profile picture: Chirwa, Ms NN

Chirwa, Ms NN to ask the Minister of Justice and Correctional Services

What (a) is the current total number of cases of child maintenance that are being held in abeyance because the parents against whom support is claimed cannot be found and (b) steps are being taken by his department to trace parents in instances where a parent who must pay support cannot be found?

Reply:

a) The Department’s Maintenance Integrated Case Management System (Maintenance ICMS) data collection system does not collect information on the number of cases kept in abeyance specifically for cases where parents against whom support is claimed cannot be found. The Maintenance ICMS captures data relating to court processes and therefore does not specifically collect data on maintenance investigation processes which are administrative processes conducted outside of the court related processes before or during formal enquiry as part of maintenance file preparation. As Maintenance Investigators carry out investigations on a variety of issues which are critical as part of preparation of maintenance cases, these were not captured because of lack of human resources capacity. However, other efforts are underway to establish monitoring systems for the administrative processes relating to case preparation functions carried out by court support officials (Maintenance Clerks, Investigators and Officers). These include the linking of the TransUnion System to the Maintenance ICMS and the development of the Person Verification System (PVS) for Family Matters. The first PVS to be developed by the Integrated Justice System in conjunction with the Office of the Chief Family Advocate (OCFA) will be the Maintenance PVS.

b) The Department is currently using the services of a third party provider, a credit bureau institution (TransUnion), to help to investigate maintenance respondents in first time applications and in cases where the respondents have defaulted in maintenance payments. This system is used to track and trace the respondents’ whereabouts; their financial information; and the assets to ensure that the Magistrate is provided with sufficient information to hold formal enquiries in respect of the various types of maintenance applications applicable. This system enables the Department to bring to court maintenance respondents and defaulters who may not want to be found to ultimately pay maintenance for their children as obliged in terms of the law. Third party provider systems are not the only means used to conduct investigations to track and trace the whereabouts of the respondents or Defaulters. Maintenance Investigators use a host of other sources to gather both personal and financial details of parties involved in maintenance applications. These include information from Municipalities Vehicle Registration Offices, Department of Labour, Department of Housing; South African Revenue Services (SARS) etc.

END

16 March 2022 - NW294

Profile picture: Chirwa, Ms NN

Chirwa, Ms NN to ask the Ms N.N Chirwa (EFF) to ask the Minister of Justice and Correctional Services

What is the reason that a certain inmate (details furnished) has been denied repeated requests for medical care?

Reply:

The mentioned inmate is receiving treatment for his medical condition from the centre clinic on a continuous basis and on 01 February 2022, he was seen by the visiting medical practitioner who endorsed that the patient must be referred to King Edward Hospital.

The offender has a confirmed appointment date for 15 March 2022

END

16 March 2022 - NW402

Profile picture: Breytenbach, Adv G

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

By what date is it anticipated that his department will finally make the long outstanding payments due to pensioners of the Department of Correctional Services in terms of the occupation-specific dispensation reached in March 2017?

Reply:

The audit of the Occupation Specific Dispensation payments to ex-officials has been finalised on 15 February 2022. Following the audit, the process of payments to ex-officials has started again.

Payments will be processed per region, and the Department has already started with Eastern Cape. In each region ex-officials who previously never got any payments will be prioritised, after which those cases in which officials were underpaid will be processed.

It is anticipated that all Occupational Specific Dispensation payments will be finalised by 31 August 2022

END

16 March 2022 - NW139

Profile picture: Horn, Mr W

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

What is the status of all the infrastructure projects of his department aimed at (a) adding additional bed spaces to correctional facilities and (b) building of new correctional centres?

Reply:

a) Currently, DCS has one upgrade project in execution at Parys for the construction of additional bed spaces. This project is underway and scheduled for completion during the 2022/23 financial year. The project is implemented by the Development Bank of Southern Africa (DBSA). The construction is at 85% completion.

b) Building of new correctional centres can be summarised as follow:

Projects: Construction of new correctional centre

Status

Burgersdorp

Tender advertised for the appointment of a construction contractor. Bid Adjudication stage with DPWI. Construction contractor appointment scheduled for the 2022/2023 financial year.

Lichtenburg

Project in design stages. Site clearance finalised, Construction contractor appointment scheduled for the 2022/2023 financial year. The project is in the process to be adopted from the DPWI, due to delays during the planning and design stages.

Thohoyandou

Site clearance stage: Project deferred due to budget constraints.

Kirkwood

Site identified. The feasibility studies are 80% complete. Project deferred due to budget constraints.

Richards Bay

Feasibility study stage. Project deferred due to budget constraints.

Nigel

Appointment of consultants to conduct Environmental Impact Assessments finalised. Project deferred due to budget constraints.

Leeuwkop

Appointment of consultants to conduct Environmental Impact Assessments finalised. Project deferred due to budget constraints.

George

Project deferred due to budget constraints.

Voorberg

Project deferred due to budget constraints.

Klerksdorp

Feasibility study and site clearance processes finalised. Project deferred due to budget constraints.

Khayelisha

Project deferred due to budget constraints. Site identification report completed.

Bergville

Project deferred due to budget constraints. Site identification report was completed.

Potchefstroom

Project deferred due to budget constraints. Site clearance processes not initiated.

Losperfontein

Project deferred due to budget constraints. Site clearance processes not initiated.

Polokwane

Project deferred due to budget constraints. A Township Establishment was approved by the Municipality in 2011.

Port Shepstone

Site clearance outstanding.

Mouth Ayliff

Project deferred due to budget constraints. Site clearance processes not initiated.

Engcobo

Project deferred due to budget constraints. Site clearance processes not initiated.

Queenstown

Project deferred due to budget constraints. Site clearance processes not initiated.

East London

Project deferred due to budget constraints. Site clearance processes not initiated.

Durban

Project deferred due to budget constraints. Site clearance processes not initiated.

END

15 March 2022 - NW107

Profile picture: Seitlholo, Mr IS

Seitlholo, Mr IS to ask the Minister of Justice and Correctional Services

What is the (a) current status of the 51 criminal cases related to public funds in the North West that are pursued by the (i) National Prosecuting Authority and (ii) Directorate for Priority Crime Investigation (details furnished) and (b) breakdown of each and every case highlighted including the person(s) involved?

Reply:

(a) current status of the 51 criminal cases related to public funds in the North West that are pursued by the (i) National Prosecuting Authority and (ii) Directorate for Priority Crime Investigation (details furnished):

Summary details of the 51 cases is as follows:

17 of these cases are currently enrolled;

  • With a total of 19 accused persons before court
  • Amongst the accused are a former head of department, three former municipal managers and a mayor.

Total amount of prejudice involved: R53 551 742.46

2 cases are currently with the NPA/ SCCU for guidance to the DPCI on further investigations to be conducted or decision on whether to initiate a criminal prosecution.

19 cases are with the DPCI for further investigations.

13 cases have been finalised with the following outcomes:

  • 5 Convictions: (5 accused persons convicted)
  • Total amount of prejudice involved: R2,155,990.00
  • 2 acquittals
  • 8 cases withdrawn / prosecution declined

Details of the 17 cases enrolled

  1. Ventersdorp CAS 63/07/2021 (Fraud): partly heard and remanded to 04 April 2022 for arguments before judgment.
  2. Wolmaranstad CAS 07/07/2015 (Fraud & corruption): Case remanded to 17-19 August 2022 for trial.
  3. Wolmaranstad CAS 11/09/2015 (Fraud & corruption): Case remanded to 17-19 August 2022 for trial.
  4. Orkney CAS 15/11/2010 (Fraud): Case remanded to 17 May 2022 for further trial.
  5. Orkney CAS 17/11/2010 (Fraud): Case remanded to 17 May 2022 for further trial.
  6. Orkney CAS 18/11/2010 (Fraud): Case remanded to 17 May 2022 for further trial.
  7. Orkney CAS 62/11/2015 (Fraud): Case remanded to 17 May 2022 for further trial.
  8. Rustenburg CAS 302/08/2014 (Fraud): Case remanded to 18 February 2022 pending representations by Accused 2.
  9. Orkney CAS 16/11/2020 (Fraud): Case remanded to 22 February 2022 for a pre-trial conference.
  10. Makapanstad CAS 83/12/2015 (Corruption): Case remanded to 29 March 2022 for trial
  11. .Zeerust CAS 54/03/2015 (Fraud): Case remanded to 17 February 2022 for a pre-sentence report and sentencing.
  12. Mmabatho CAS 206/02/2018 (Fraud): Case is on the High Court roll for trial from 14 February to 18 February 2022.
  13. Setlagole CAS 09/10/2019 (Corruption): Case remanded to 19 April 2022 for trial.
  14. Potchefstroom CAS 187/5/2020 (Fraud): Case remanded to 28 February 2022 for further trial.
  15. Christiana CAS 37/09/2016 (Fraud): Case remanded to 30 May 2022 for trial.
  16. Taung CAS 94/11/2015 (Fraud): Case remanded to 21 February 2022 for trial.
  17. Rustenburg CAS 552/05/2016 (Contravention of the Municipal Finance Management Act): Case remanded to 04 April 2022 for trial.

Cases pending guidance / decision (2)

Vryburg CAS 120/06/2013 Background of Case (Summary)

Tender awarded to build RDP houses and installation of electricity at Naledi Local Municipality during the period of 2009-02-01 to 2012-12-30. The contractor failed to install the electricity as per specification but invoiced the municipality for building and installation of electricity. The Technical Director confirmed that work has been done by signing the certificate knowing that no work was done.

Current Status:

The prosecutor’s decision is awaited.

Tlhabane CAS 105/7/2014:

 ackground of Case (Summary)

It is alleged that Tau Pride Project was appointed as the principal agent for the construction of Rustenburg CHC and Tlhabane CHC without following the correct tender process.

The department of Public Works approved the tender while it was not budgeted for. Tau Pride Project left the site before they could finish the construction and another company was appointed to complete the construction while Tau Pride Project was paid the full amount for the building.

Current Status:

The contract prosecutor who initially dealt with this matter resigned from the NPA with effect from 30 September 2021. A proper hand over was done to the newly appointed prosecutors who are dealing with the matter, including consulting with key witnesses, before a final decision is made.

Matters under investigation (19):

Mmabatho CAS 7/11/2016

Background of Case (Summary)

The complainant alleged that the former HOD of Public Works who is currently the administrator of Public Works, together with the four district directors and the CFO of the Dept. of Public Works colluded to award a tender to construct roads without following the prescribed tender procedures, the tender was for the four districts: Bojanala, Dr Ruth Segomotsi Mompati, Ngaka Modiri Molema, and Kenneth Kaunda.

Current Status:

The prosecutor has studied the docket and issued queries to the investigation officer. The forensic audit report is outstanding as there is a dispute between the Department and the forensic auditor regarding payment.

The investigation team is currently engaging stakeholders to address this challenge.

Mmabatho CAS 135/01/2016

Background of Case (Summary)

It is alleged that the Department of Health appointed service providers for the upgrading of Brits hospital unlawfully.

Current Status:

The contract prosecutor who initially dealt with this matter consulted with the witnesses and as a result of those consultations identified certain outstanding issues. The said prosecutor however has resigned from the NPA with effect from 30/09/2021. A proper handover was done to another prosecutor who has studied the docket and has engaged the investigation team on the abovementioned outstanding issues.

Feedback from the investigation team is expected by the end of February 2022.

Rustenburg CAS 331/9/2019

Background of Case (Summary):

It was alleged that CMS Water Engineering was appointed fraudulently without following the procurement processes and procedures. The tender was for upgrading and extension of Bospoort Water Treatment Works in Rustenburg. It was further alleged that the abovementioned company invoiced the Municipality for services that were not rendered or supplied.

Current Status:

The docket was submitted to the DPP for decision. Certain outstanding issues have been identified. The investigating officer is dealing with these issues with the guidance of the prosecutor.

Mmabatho CAS 141/9/2013

Background of Case (Summary)

The department went on tender and the service providers namely Raliform Investment and Mr Property were appointed to deliver and service medical equipment to Vryburg and Brits Hospital. The allegations are that the officials connived with the service provider to defraud the department by inflating prices as well as paying for services not rendered (some of the medical equipment were not delivered and those delivered were not according to specifications).

Current status:

The matter is under investigation. An additional prosecutor has been added to the team with effect from 1 October 2021. Outstanding issues in conjunction with the investigation team has been identified and possible charges have been identified.

Mmabatho CAS 302/01/2014

Background of Case (Summary)

It was alleged that officials of Public Works Road and Transport colluded with service providers and that supply chain management processes were not followed during the appointment of scholar transport tender in the North West Province. A tender was advertised (PWRT 029/10) in 2010 and approximately 150 service providers were appointed in October 2010 of which some were appointed on a month to month basis.

Current Status:

The docket was submitted to DPP for decision. The prosecutor has perused the docket, case planning meetings have taken place and directives for further investigation are being attended to.

Mogwase CAS 43/09/2019

Background of Case (Summary)

Matter involves the disposal of land to the detriment of the Bakgatla-Ba-Kgafela tribe by their traditional leader and/or council, through collusion with mining companies as well as the misappropriation of tribal funds.

Current Status:

The docket was submitted to DPP for guidance. The prosecutor has issued directives for further investigation. The appointment of a forensic auditor by the administrator of the Tribal Authority is currently awaited.

Mmabatho CAS 345/5/2018

Background of Case (Summary)

A company known as AgriDelight entered into an agreement with the North West Department of Rural Environment and Agricultural Development (“the Department”) as an implementing agent for the Department. The Department would pay money to AgriDelight for the approved projects. Thus far, investigation has established that the Department made payments of approximately six hundred and four million, forty-eight thousand, eight hundred and twenty-eight rand and eighteen cents (R604 048 828.18) into the bank account held by AgriDelight.

Current Status:

Case planning meetings have taken place and the investigation team is dealing with directives issued by the prosecutor on 25/11/2021.

Mmabatho CAS 01/07/2020

Background of Case (Summary)

It is alleged that a service provider in the Office of the Premier of North West Province, namely NEPO Data Dynamic (Pty) Ltd (“NEPO”) received suspicious payments from the Office of the Premier. NEPO was appointed to provide IT services to the Office of the Premier and numerous municipalities in the North West province. There were suspicious payments made to NEPO.

Current Status:

The docket has been submitted for decision. The prosecutor has perused the docket, case planning meetings have taken place and prosecutorial directives for further investigation are being attended to by the investigation team.

Mahikeng CAS 369/06/2017

Background of Case (Summary)

The Former MEC of Public Works misrepresented to the department by signing housing documents pretending to be the MEC of Local Government and Human Settlement whereby houses were registered unlawfully to non-deserving beneficiaries.

Current Status:

Case planning meetings have taken place and the investigation team is dealing with directives issued by the prosecutor. Engagement with SIU investigators on the matter has also taken place.

Mmabatho CAS 63/02/2013

Background of Case (Summary)

The Former MEC of Finance and the Director in her office contracted Morake attorneys to render a service of proceeding over a disciplinary matter against three (3) senior officials within the department. The said law firm delayed the proceedings and inflated prices which were not agreed upon. Upon investigation it revealed that the MEC and the director connived with the service provider to invoice and inflate prices to the department.

Current Status:

The docket was submitted to the prosecutor who has issued directives for further investigation. The docket is still under investigation

Mmabatho CAS 89/03/2018

Background of Case (Summary)

The department of Health appointed a service provider namely Buthelezi Ambulances to render services of transporting patients from the clinics to the hospital. The allegations are that the tender procedures were not followed to appoint the said service provider as well as officials conniving with Buthelezi Ambulances to deviate from their initial contract and render service that they were not supposed to. Further allegations are that the service provider with the assistance of the officials inflated the amount that was supposed to be paid.

Current status:

The docket is still under Investigation, the docket has not yet been submitted to the prosecutor for decision.

Mmabatho CAS 181/5/2020

Background of Case (Summary)

The complainant, HOD of Department of Community Safety and Transport Management alleged that her department unlawfully entered into a contract with SA Express and the contract was never put onto a competitive bidding process.

The contract was for the rehabilitation and reintroduction of flights at Mahikeng and Pilanesberg Airports. The money paid out by the Department into SAX Express was paid out to various entities through a money laundering scheme which involved Koroneka and others.

Current Status:

The prosecutor has studied the docket issued directives for further investigation. The investigation is at an advanced stage.

Mmabatho Cas 36/05/2020

Background of Case (Summary)

The complainant, Administrator of Department of Transport alleged that there were irregular appointments of service providers to provide scholar transport. It is further alleged that the service providers inflated the travelling kilometres.

Current Status:

The docket is still under investigation.

Mahikeng CAS 256/4/2015

Background of Case (Summary)

It is alleged that in December 2012, a public entity known as Social Housing Regulatory Authority (“SHRA”) concluded a Restructuring Capital Grant with Mafikeng Project Securitisation (Pty) Ltd trading as Marang Estate for the construction of 2 400 housing units. It is further alleged that between19 December 2012 and 12 June 2013, an amount of R144 755 020.00 was paid out by SHRA to Marang Estate in three tranches. The said amount came from funds which had been re-directed to SHRA from Eastern Cape Department of Human Settlement and Free State Department of Human Settlement.

Current Status:

The docket was submitted to DPP for decision. Due to the scale of the allegations, the investigation was divided into sections or legs. On the first leg relating to funds paid by the public entity and the department to the private company, a decision to decline prosecution has been taken. The investigation regarding the remaining leg is still outstanding.  

Mmabatho CAS 134/03/2018

Background of Case (Summary)

The allegations are that the HoD of the Department DPW misrepresented to the department that he had invoked Section 16a of National Treasury to contractor Ayama Consulting to render service of building roads within the North West Province. Furthermore, an upfront payment of R103 000 000.00 was paid to the said contractor for services not rendered. Preliminary investigations were conducted and revealed that the tender used from Mbombela Municipality was actually for water and sanitation and not for construction of roads.

Current status:

The docket was presented for decision and on 16 November 2020 the prosecutor declined prosecution, indicating the absence of the forensic reports as main reason for the said decision. The DPCI subsequently obtained three separate forensic reports on the matter from the Department of Public Works, which they handed over to the prosecutor 18 November 2021. The prosecutor has studied the three reports and on 25 November 2021 he issued directives for further investigation thereon, which are being attended to by the investigation team.

Mogwase CAS 292/01/2017

Background of Case (Summary)

The complainant alleged that the Company Big Time Strategies was appointed to render Soft Ware services, Training and Hardware (computers etc) to the municipality and they were paid for services not rendered. Investigations were instituted and National Treasury was roped in to assist with the investigation whereby it has been established that the company was appointed unlawfully without going through proper processes as required by PFMA and MFMA.

Current Status:

The docket was submitted for decision and on 19 April 2021 the prosecutor has decided to decline prosecution. The DPCI followed up on the deficiencies pointed out by the prosecutor and has re-submitted the docket for guidance. A new prosecutor has been allocated to the matter with effect from 1 October 2021, who has studied the docket and issued directives for finalising the investigation.

Matters finalised (13):

Bloemhof CAS 187/03/2014

Background of Case (Summary)

The Bloemhof municipality had assets which were worn out and wanted to dispose them off. They then appointed an auction company to dispose the properties and the auction took place, of which the auctioneer did not pay the municipality the proceeds.

Outcome:

The accused was convicted and was sentenced on 2020-11-18 as follows:

5 years imprisonment

Mmabatho CAS 159/02/2014

Background of Case (Summary)

The complainant alleged that they appointed an auctioneer to sell property belonging to Botshelo water, and the auctioneer did not pay the proceeds to Botshelo water

Outcome:

The accused was convicted and was sentenced as follows:

3 years imprisonment wholly suspended for 5 years.

Klerksdorp CAS 392/06/2015

Background of Case (Summary)

Matlosana Local Municipality complained that certain municipal employees at the Financial Section, Indigent Unit were manipulating the system. It was further alleged that payments were done to volunteers at the Indigent Unit without them doing any work. The volunteer will then be contacted and the money would be withdrawn from the bank account and handed over to the municipal employee.

Outcome:

Accused was convicted on 2019-02-08 and was sentenced as follows:

-Accused to repay R68 530 in terms of Sec 300 of Act 51 of 1977 to Matlosana Local Municipality.

-All counts taken together for the purpose of sentences and he was sentenced to a fine of R50 000.00 or 3yrs imprisonment. He was further sentenced to 3yrs imprisonment which was suspended for 5yrs on condition that he does not commit any crime of the same nature during the period of suspension.

Rustenburg CAS 302/08/2014

Background of Case (Summary)

The complainant alleged that three employees within the salary department employed at Rustenburg Local Municipality connived with their colleagues that monies will be deposited in their accounts as acting allowances, of which they will withdraw the money and share it amongst themselves.

Outcome:

On 2019-08-26, Accused 1 was found guilty and sentenced to 10 years imprisonment of which 5 years is suspended for 5 years on each count.

Accused 1 previously entered into an agreement with the municipality after a disciplinary hearing and paid an amount to R57, 767.60

The case against Accused 2 is remanded to 18/2/2022 pending representations.

Accuse 3 passedd away during 2021.

 

Vryburg CAS 72/02/2012

Background of Case (Summary)

It is alleged that during 2007, Naledi Local Municipality made an application for the approval of housing projects in respect of Vryburg extensions 25 and 28. The Municipal Manager appointed Khasu Engineering Services without following procurement processes for the establishment of the 3 000 low cost houses. It is further alleged that the service provider submitted claims for the work not done.

(R60, 000, 000.00).

Outcome:

Accused Zwelakhe Erick Phukwana was convicted on 2021-02-11 and sentenced to an effective period of imprisonment of 8 years. A confiscation order in the amount of R454,000.00 was obtained against the accused.

The second leg of the case relating to Khasu Engineering is pending decision by the prosecution team. Consultation with witnesses are underway. This matter is investigated by DPCI, Pretoria

Wolmaranstad CAS 92/12/2020

Background of Case (Summary)

The municipality advertised a tender for refuse trucks whereby the complainant was one of the service providers that bid for the tender. The complainant alleges that he was approached by the employees of the municipality whereby they promised to influence the committee to award the said tender to him for benefit.

Outcome:

Matter was before court on 2019-04-24. The accused was acquitted.

Mahikeng CAS 165/01/2018

Background of Case (Summary)

The department of Health Advertised a vacancy for a HoD post. The appointed HoD misrepresented by submitting false information during his application. Information was received that the appointment was irregular as he did not make the requirement as per the Advert of the post. Preliminary investigations were conducted and proved that there was a prima facie case that needs further investigation. 

Outcome:

The case was prosecuted in the High Court. On 9 November 2021 the Court acquitted the accused. The court found their versions in light of all circumstances to be reasonably possibly true.

Lichtenburg CAS 259/8/2016

Background of Case (Summary)

Financial Intelligence Centre (“FIC”) identified several deposits into the bank account of the Chief Financial Officer of Ditsobotla Local Municipality from the following entities:

Khoisan Roads Cc, Ipes-Utility Management Services (PTY) LTD; and Bay Breeze Trading 241 Cc Two of the abovementioned entities are service providers of Ditsobotla Local Municipality.

Outcome:

The main suspect has passed away and prosecution was declined on 22 July 2021.

Potchefstroom CAS 81/05/2011

Background of Case (Summary)

Docket was opened by the Department of Education North West in Potchefstroom. The complainant alleges that two tenders were awarded during 2007. These two tenders were allegedly awarded to four companies. During investigations by the Department of Education it was discovered that two of these four companies were allegedly front companies.

Outcome:

The DPP declined to prosecute, due to insufficient evidence to prosecute

Hartbeespoortdam CAS 174/6/2016 & 175/06/2016

Background of Case (Summary)

Docket was opened by the Department of Water and Sanitation North West at Hartbeespoortdam. The complainant alleged that the suspects contravened sec 57 (e) of the PFMA, by appointing a company to upgrade the road at Hartbeespoortdam and Lindleyspoort dam whereas the terms of the contract does not make provisions for such services. It was also found the same service provider had received other tenders without following tender procedures.

Outcome:

The DPP declined to prosecute.

Mogwase CAS 204/03/2013

Background of Case (Summary)

The Department appointed a contractor to disburse an amount of R1.5m to create projects to alleviate poverty for 100 indigent’s community members but the contractor allegedly disbursed for only 22 indigents. The said contractor allegedly failed to return to the site to continue with the project as agreed in the service level agreement and stole the remaining amount.

Outcome:

The DPP declined to prosecute (Suspect deceased).

Mmabatho CAS 270/05/2011

Background of Case (Summary)

The department of Education Advertised a tender seeking a motivational speaker who will render service to different districts within the province for a period of six (6) months. The MEC, Superintendent General and officials connived with the appointed service provider to defraud the department by inflating prices and claiming for services not rendered.

The case was before the Mahikeng High Court and was struck off the roll on 2014-08-25 because the prosecutor needed to finalise the charge sheet and get permission from the DPP North West to re-enrol the matter.

Outcome:

Application for re-enrolment was submitted to the DPP. The DPP requested the DPCI to follow up on certain aspects before a final decision could be made. On 21 September 2021, the DPP refused authorisation in terms of section 342A of Act 51 of 1977 for re-enrolment of the matter, and the matter is now deemed finalised.

______________________________________________________________________

24 February 2022 - NW140

Profile picture: Horn, Mr W

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

What (a) is the reason that the building of the new Magistrates Court in Port Shepstone has not been completed and (b) are the details of the cost overrun caused by the delay to finalise the project?

Reply:

a) Basil Read was appointed in 2014 as the contractor for the construction of the new Port Shepstone Magistrate Court. The site was handed over to the contractor in October 2014 with the initial construction period of 24 months. The contract was terminated following payment disputes and voluntary business rescue of the contractor in 2019.

The Department of Public Works and Infrastructure (DPWI) disputed the terms and conditions that the contractor required for contract cancellation and the matter is in litigation. Part of the dispute is the contract final account, which was prepared by DPWI, that Basil Read is rejecting.

DPWI has since advertised the outstanding scope and it took more than 18 months to appoint the replacement contractor to complete all the outstanding works. The replacement contractor (Musan Trading Enterprise) was appointed, and the site was handed over in September 2021. The project is anticipated to be completed in March 2023.

b) The first contract of Basil Read was awarded at a contract amount of R286 million over 24 months. By the time the contract of Basil Read was terminated, R265 million was already paid to the contractor for work done. Basil Read is further claiming R162 million for the final account, which DPWI is refusing to pay, a matter which is part of the litigation in court.

The second contract was awarded at R95 million over 18 months. The project is anticipated to be completed in March 2023. The new scope includes incomplete (outstanding) works, remedial works, commissioning and snagging.

END

24 February 2022 - NW8

Profile picture: Mulder, Dr CP

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

Whether there are existing service provider contracts in place to maintain and support Court Recording Technology (CRT) networks in each province; if not, (a) on what dates did the previous contracts lapse, (b) what are the reasons that the specified contracts were not timeously renewed and (c) what steps are being taken to rectify the matter; if so, what are the relevant details; (2) what are the backlogs in maintenance and repairs to such equipment in each province; (3) what impact does the lack of fully functioning Court Recording Technology (CRT) equipment have on court proceedings in both criminal and civil courts in both high and low courts in each province; (4) whether he will make a statement on the matter?

Reply:

1. Yes, the Department has appointed a service provider on a 12 months contract while awaiting the finalisation of the long term solution. As such, the appointed service provider is responsible for supporting both Court Recording Technology (CRT) and Sexual Offences System across the country. At the same time, the Department has embarked on a process for procuring an overarching contract for a period of three (3) years. This process is at an advanced stage, and is expected to be published by the end of February 2022.

if not, (a) on what dates did the previous contracts lapse?

The contract expired on 21 April 2021, and interim measures were put in place to ensure continuity. These interim measures relate to providing support and maintenance as part of an existing contract that is providing regional support service. In terms of this arrangement, the service provider was appointed to perform the maintenance and support services for Court Recording Technology (CRT) and SOS between June 2021 and August 2021, on a project basis. Thereafter internal officials were assisting in trouble-shooting and reporting on a case by case basis.

(b) what are the reasons that the specified contracts were not timeously renewed?

Capacity constraints in both Information Systems Management (ISM) and Supply Chain Management (SCM) as well as Contract Management Units were part of the reasons. The Department operated without the Head of ISM, Chief Financial Officer (CFO), Chief Director: SCM and Director: SCM for a while. However, such capacity constraints are now being addressed. The following posts have been finalised to capacitate the finance section:

  1. CFO
  2. Chief Director: Financial Accounting
  3. Director: IT Strategic Sourcing
  4. Chief Director: SCM (awaiting interviews)

Director: SCM (awaiting short listing)

(c) and what steps are being taken to rectify the matter; if so, what are the relevant details;

In order to rectify the matter, the Department has concluded the following to ensure operational continuity, whilst concluding an overarching contract for a period of three years:

  • The Department has appointed a company on a 12 months contract for maintenance of Court Recording Technology (CRT) and Sexual Offences System.
  • Concurrent to this, the Department has already started the procurement process to appoint a service provider to deliver the support and maintenance for Court Recording Technology (CRT) over a period of three years. At the date of writing, this process has progressed quite significantly with the Bid Specification having been finalised and is being Quality Assured, with the view of publication by the end of February 2022. Implementation of this process is being monitored on a weekly basis by the relevant senior manager, supported by a Task Team monitoring High Priority procurements.

2. As at 1st February 2022, there were 700 backlog calls of which the appointed service provider has already started to deal with the backlog, so far the provider has managed to resolve 90 calls and the process is ongoing.

3. South African courts are courts of record, which depend on court recording technology to conduct efficient and effective court proceedings. The Court Recording Technology (CRT) solution allow for electronically recorded cases that are stored in a data repository and made available whenever requested, either for transcription or other purposes. In most instances, when the recording is non-functional, this means that the court session cannot take place and must be postponed.

24 February 2022 - NW26

Profile picture: Msimang, Prof CT

Msimang, Prof CT to ask the Minister of Justice and Correctional Services

In view of concerning reports following an oversight visit to the Mpumalanga High Court and a provincial sexual offences court about the state of infrastructure at the Court and concerns of security risks, considering the importance of a well-functioning Court in ensuring access to justice, what (a) investigations have been undertaken by his department, considering the serious infrastructure and security concerns at the Mpumalanga High Court and (b) action will be taken to urgently address the concerns?

Reply:

a) The construction of the Mpumalanga High Court was completed in May 2019, and the practical completion certificate was issued. Before the practical completion certificate was issued, there was a two weeks’ assessment which was performed by the project team, i.e. the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development (DoJ&CD), Office of the Chief Justice (OCJ), Independent Development Trust (IDT), Department of Public Works and Infrastructure (DPWI), Consultants and Contractor, to determine the condition of the buildings and its equipment. The outcome of this assessment was a snag list that was issued to the contractor. As per the signed construction contract, the court buildings were under warranty/guarantee for a period of one (1) year, from June 2019 to May 2020, where the contractor was responsible for maintenance and completing the snag list that was issued during the assessment.

The DoJ&CD transferred the court facility to DPWI as per Section 42 of PFMA in September 2019. The transfer letter further requested DPWI to implement a Total Facility Management Solution (TFMS) for the maintenance of the court buildings.

Whilst the process of appointing TFMS is underway within DPWI, DoJ&CD and OCJ are maintaining the facility through day-to-day maintenance. On monthly basis, a report is generated regarding the maintenance requirements of the court and this are addressed through day to day maintenance.

The maintenance of major equipment like HVAC (aircons), lifts and fire system are done by DPWI on behalf of DoJ&CD.

The technical assessment of Mpumalanga High Court is underway by the professional engineers to conclude the specification for the TFMS.

The DoJ&CD did not perform any separate investigations regarding the security concerns since these were part of the infrastructural challenges of the building project. However, the Department appointed a security service provider to repair and maintain the system. During the system assessment, the service provider identified two (2) faulty Network Recording Devices (NVR’s) that records the images in cameras, and as a result the cameras became dysfunctional. The two (2) NVR’s were taken for repairs, and it was discovered that they cannot be repaired due to unavailability of spares in the local market, the recommendations were to replace them with local manufactured NVR’s. As interim security measures, the Department has deployed the contracted security guarding services in the High Court, hence the Integrated Security System (i.e. cameras, card reader systems) are also partially working to provide safety to the court building. The procurement processes for the new NVR’s are currently in progress and anticipated to be finalized on or before 31 March 2022.

b) The court is maintained by DoJ&CD and DPWI using day-to-day maintenance delegations. The DoJ&CD is allocating R10 million per annum to OCJ for day-to-day maintenance of all the High Courts in the country. Following a meeting with DPWI in January 2022, DPWI agreed to take over the full maintenance of the court until TFMS is implemented. The DoJ&CD has agreed to make funding available for the full maintenance.

END

11 January 2022 - NW1791

Profile picture: Groenewald, Dr PJ

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

(1) Since the establishment of the Central Firearms Register (CFR) in 2004, what total number of court cases have been filed against the CFR to date; (2) what (a) number of the specified cases have been (i) finalised and (ii) lost by the CFR and (b) was the cost of litigation in each case; (3) whether he will make a statement on the matter?

Reply:

 

  1. and (2)(a)(i) and(ii). I wish to inform the Honourable Member that the Central Firearms Register (CFR) falls within the area of responsibility of the Minister of Police. The information to this part of the question must be obtained from the Minister of Police

  2. (b). The information on the costs of the litigation is unfortunately not readily available as the case numbers and further particulars in respect of each of the cases will first have to be obtained from the SAPS.

  3. No.

11 January 2022 - NW2752

Profile picture: Chirwa, Ms NN

Chirwa, Ms NN to ask the Minister of Justice and Correctional Services

What (a) is the recourse for a parent who seeks legal intervention from maintenance courts and the respondent from whom they are seeking maintenance resources does not receive a court summons to appear in court, (b) steps is his department taking to mitigate this situation and (c) number of times has this situation occurred (i) in the 2020-21 financial year and (ii) since 1 April 2021?

Reply:

(a). The Department takes a holistic approach to the protection of the inalienable Constitutional provision in respect of the interests of the children. In order to alleviate the problem of prolonged frustration of the maintenance system by persons liable to maintain who can either not be served or are deliberately avoiding service of process, resource for the applicant can found in the provisions of section 6 and 7 of the Maintenance Act 99 of 1998. The said sections provides that whenever a Maintenance officer becomes seized with a complaint he/she should investigate such complaint and can obtain statements under oath or affirmation of persons who may provide relevant information of the person being sought, or gather information concerning the identification or whereabouts of such person as well as their financial position.

(b). The Department employs Maintenance Investigations who have the powers to take necessary steps to locate the person being sought. Furthermore, the department uses the Track and Trace system which has access to various online databases and/ or “ information hubs” that enables the Maintenance Investigator to find alternative addresses, details of properties such as businesses, motor vehicles, ect. Which have been registered in the name of the person being sought so that they can use the information to secure their attendance at court.

(c). The reporting system remains inaccessible since the September 2021 cyber- attack on the department, hence, no accurate information can be provided at this point in time and can be provided as soon as possible after the system is restored.

END

REPLY:

The National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) is yet to finalise criminal prosecutions against government officials on charges of corruption regarding personal protective equipment. Therefore, no convictions in this regard have as yet been attained.

However, although no such criminal prosecutions have been finalised, the NPA has initiated criminal prosecutions in respect of the following number of government officials:

National Departments

1

Provincial Departments

9

Local Municipalities

2

It is important to note that by 1 December 2021, the number of cases enrolled from the referrals by the Fusion Centre amount to forty-two (42) cases involving ninety (90) accused persons. Apart from the forty-two (42) enrolled, another sixteen (16) were finalised in court, fifteen (15) convictions and one (1) acquittal. These cases do not all relate to corruption charges in terms of the Prevention and Combatting of Corrupt Activities Act, Act 12 of 2004, but include charges of fraud, theft and contraventions of other legislation regarding maladministration related to COVID-19 funds, procurement and allocated funding.

11 January 2022 - NW2579

Profile picture: Breytenbach, Adv G

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

With reference to the 35% increase in irregular expenditure to R1,41 billion and 93% increase in fruitless and wasteful expenditure to R1,13 billion in the 2020-21 financial year, what steps does he intend to take to (a) address the sharp increase in irregular and fruitless and wasteful expenditure in his department and (b) hold those employees found to be responsible for incurring the irregular and fruitless and wasteful expenditure accountable?

Reply:

 

The increase of the fruitless and wasteful expenditure for 2020/21 financial year is R1,13 million (not billion) as indicated in the question. (See Annual Report 2020/21, pg 265 for ease of reference).

  1. Department has investigated a total of 1 082 cases of irregular, fruitless and wasteful expenditure out of 1 320 cases reported. The progress translates to 82% of cases investigated.
  1. Consequence management measures were applied on a total of 136 transactions where officials received varying disciplinary outcomes.

The following table provides a summary of the number of officials disciplined and outcomes:

Number of Officials

Disciplinary outcomes

17

Written warnings

15

Final written warnings

03

Suspensions without Salary

06

Verbal warnings

01

Corrective counselling

Total 42

It must be noted that of the 1082 cases investigated a large number of cases did not yield evidence to warrant sanction for irregular, fruitless and wasteful transactions. It is further emphasised that of the 136 transactions some of the 42 sanctioned officials may have been implicated in more than one of the identified transactions.

In addition to the above, the Department further investigated a total of 154 cases identified by the AGSA through a Computer Assisted Audit Techniques (CAATs) of which 30 cases related to the non-disclosure of interest by officials.

The table below provides a summary of the outcomes investigated relating to the above 30 cases of non-disclosure of interest as follows:-

Number of cases

Outcomes/comments

08

Officials resigned prior to investigations being conducted

05

Officials were disciplined (Verbal, final written warning issued)

02

Awaiting disciplinary outcomes

15

Officials cannot be directly linked to companies.

The balance of 124 cases could not be pursued on merit.

Furthermore, the following are cases investigated by the SIU which were referred to the Department for further processing:

    • Proclamation 10 of 2018: Tenders in KZN;
    • Proclamation 20 of 2016: Appointment of Masetloaka Scott Wilson (PTY) LTD (MSW);
    • Proclamation 23 of 2020: Personal Protective Equipment;

The officials implicated are undergoing disciplinary processes as a result of such referrals.

END

11 January 2022 - NW2703

Profile picture: Van Der Walt, Ms D

Van Der Walt, Ms D to ask the Minister of Justice and Correctional Services

(1) Since the establishment of the Sexual Offences and Community Affairs Unit of the National Prosecuting Authority in 1999, (a) what total number of (i) reports, (ii) studies and (iii) research papers have been commissioned internally and/or externally on the (aa) reasons for, (bb) effects of and (cc) eradication of the pandemic of sexual offences in the Republic, (b) by whom was the research conducted and (c) what was the topic of the research; (2) Whether he will furnish Mrs D van der Walt with a copy of the reports; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details? NW3216E

Reply:

 

  1. The Sexual Offences and Community Affairs (SOCA) Unit did not commission any research. However, the Unit participated in research projects commissioned by others (institutions and individuals) by making relevant National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) officials available to be interviewed or assist with data. The list of research projects that were approved by the SOCA Unit through the NPA’s research unit from 2017 to date is attached as Annexure A.
  2. The NPA is not able to share any research reports due to the fact that authors only granted permission for internal use by the organisation but not for sharing with external parties. The NPA respects the intellectual property of the researchers or authors.

11 January 2022 - NW2614

Profile picture: Van Der Walt, Ms D

Van Der Walt, Ms D to ask the Minister of Justice and Correctional Services

1. What total number of inmates were incarcerated at each correctional facility in the period (a) 01 January 2017 to 31 December 2017, (b) 01 January 2018 to 31 December 2018, (c) 01 January 2019 to 31 December 2019, (d) 01 January 2020 to 31 January 2020 and (e) 01 January 2021 to 15 November 2021; 2. What happens to illegal foreign nationals (a) when they are eligible for parole and (b) after they have served their sentence? NW3090E

Reply:

 

  1. See response attached as Annexure A.

(2)(a) Approximately six (06) months before an offender reaches the Minimum Detention Period (MDP) the Case Management Committee (CMC) prepares the offender’s profile report (G326) and submits its recommendation to the Correctional Supervision and Parole Board (CSPB) on the possible placement on parole in line with section 42(d) of the Correctional Services Act 111/1998

The Department of Correctional Services (DCS) is responsible for identifying foreign nationals in its detention facilities and reporting such individuals to the Department of Home Affairs (DHA). The Department of Home Affairs (DHA) is responsible for establishing the nationality of such offenders and initiating the deportation of those whose stay in the Republic

of South Africa (RSA) is illegal or undesirable. It is the responsibility of the DCS to hand over such offenders to the relevant authorities either for release or deportation based on status confirmed by DHA.

In cases where the offender who is a foreign national is found to be suitable for parole placement the following conditions will be set for all sentenced foreign nationals who will be deported:

    • Offenders should not return to the Republic of South Africa (RSA) before the expiration of the parole period;
    • Offenders may not commit crime while on parole;
    • He/ she must seek authorisation from the DHA to return to the country after expiration of the parole period; and
    • His/ her personal details must be circulated to all South African boarders, South African Police Services (SAPS) and Criminal Record Centres until expiry of the parole period. The circulation of personal details to South African boarders, SAPS, Criminal Records Centres will assist in tracking the deported foreign nationals should he/ she re- offend and get re-arrested.

(2)(b) The offender will be handed over to Department of Home Affairs who must sign for receipt of the parolee for detention at a Repatriation Centre pending deportation to their country of origin.

END

11 January 2022 - NW2613

Profile picture: Van Der Walt, Ms D

Van Der Walt, Ms D to ask the Minister of Justice and Correctional Services

1. What number of illegal foreign nationals have been incarcerated in South African correctional facilities in the period (a) 1 January 2017 to 31 December 2017, (b) 1 January 2018 to 31 December 2018, (c) 1 January 2019 to 31 December 2019, (d) 1 January 2020 to 31 January 2020 and (e) 1 January 2021 to 15 November 2021; 2. in which (a) correctional facilities are and/or were the specified convicts incarcerated and (b) province is each specified facility; 3. what (a) number of the specified convicts are incarcerated at each facility and (b) is the maximum number of inmates that can be incarcerated at each specified correctional facility? NW3089E

Reply:

 

  1. The number of illegal foreign nationals incarcerated for the mentioned period are as follows:

Period

Un-sentenced

Sentenced

01 January 2017 to 31 December 2017

1 325

1 670

01 January 2018 to 31 December 2018

1 609

2 137

01 January 2019 to 31 December 2019

2 254

2 219

01 January 2020 to 31 December 2020

1 707

1 550

01 January 2021 to 15 November 2021

1 780

1 743

2. See Annexure A for response.

3. See Annexure A for response.

END

11 January 2022 - NW2861

Profile picture: Tito, Ms LF

Tito, Ms LF to ask the Minister of Justice and Correctional Services

What (a) total number of new cases of inmates who have been infected by the Omicron variant have been recorded across the Republic and (b) new and/or additional measures have been put in place to curb the spread of the new variant in our overcrowded cells?

Reply:

 

  1. During this period 03 – 09 December 2021, 125 inmates new confirmed COVID- 19 cases were reported across the regions, bringing the cumulative confirmed COVID-19 cases in inmates to 6 988.
  • The results from National Health Laboratory Services and other laboratories would not indicate the type of variant, but will be recorded as:

SARS-CoV-2 RT- PCR: Negative or Positive”

  1. There are no new and /or additional measures that have to be put in place as all the public health and social measures and vaccinations remain the same despite the type of variant of the COVID-19 as outlined below:
  • There is continuous targeted awareness and sensitisation such as promotion of hand and respiratory hygiene for inmates with regard to COVID-19 through different media as well as implementation of infection prevention and control (IPC) measures.
  • Newly admitted inmates are quarantined and monitored for a period of 10 days and if asymptomatic, they are then integrated in the communal cells and those symptomatic are tested and managed according to the prescribed protocol.
  • Inmates are screened for COVID-19 on a continual basis in order to ensure prompt identification of infected ones who will then be isolated, being managed symptomatically, and relevant contacts traced and quarantined. Those with COVID-19 related symptoms are provided with surgical masks to prevent any possible further spread, quarantined and specimens collected for testing following the prescribed protocol. Those with positive results are kept in dedicated isolation sites and managed symptomatically in compliance with the Standard Treatment Guidelines and Essential Medicines Lists (STGs and EML). Contacts of COVID-19 confirmed cases are traced in the facilities, quarantined and monitored in terms of the prescribed protocol.
  • Implementation and compliance to the Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) for Preparedness, Detection and Response to COVID-19 (developed and approved) based on the National Department of Health (NDoH) Standard Operating Procedures for Preparedness, Detection and Response to COVID-19 and other relevant information from the National Institute for Communicable Diseases (NICD) in order to contain and mitigate COVID-19 infections in the correctional facilities.
  • COVID-19 vaccines are administered to the inmates who have agreed to be vaccinated in order to achieve herd immunity in the correctional facilities in mitigating the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.

END

07 January 2022 - NW2684

Profile picture: Hendricks, Mr MGE

Hendricks, Mr MGE to ask the Minister of Justice and Correctional Services

In light of the fact that certain persons (names and details furnished) have been in jail for five years and four months, having been held in detention without trial for 64 months, with the case being endlessly delayed and postponed by the State to hand over details and defending the lawfulness of the arrests, (a) what is the position of his department in holding the specified persons indefinitely behind bars, given the failure by the State to commence with a fair trial and (b) to what degree has the State seemingly allowed foreign intelligence agencies to interfere in the charges brought against the specified persons?

Reply:

  1. The accused formally applied for bail in the Johannesburg High Court on 1 October 2021, which was denied due to the fact that the accused are flight risks and because of the seriousness of the charges levelled against them. The accused are being charged with offences in terms of the Protection of Constitutional Democracy against Terrorist and Related Activities Act (POCDATARA).

The delays in the matter, after its first enrolment on the high court roll, were caused by the various interlocutory applications brought by the accused and the continuous change of legal teams by the accused and not by the State.

The breakdown below reflects the trail of court appearances since 2016 and the reasons for the matter not proceeding.

HISTORY OF APPEARANCES:

    1. The two Accused were arrested on 9 July 2016 and appeared in the Regional Court, Court 13 in Johannesburg on 11 July 2016, where-after the case was postponed until 19 July 2016.
    2. On 18 July 2016, the defence brought a request for disclosure of the case docket in preparation of a bail application.
    3. On 19 July 2016, the case was postponed to 25 July 2016 for a formal bail application.
    4. On 25 July 2016, the Accused changed counsel and a new instructing attorney, Mr. Parak took over from Mr. Shipalana. The case was postponed to 26 July 2016 for the bail application to proceed.
    5. On 26 July 2016, the defence raised the question of the lawfulness of the arrest of the accused and the case was postponed to 29 July 2016, for evidence and legal arguments in that regard.
    1. The State led viva voce evidence on 4 – 5 August 2016 and on 15 August 2016. The court ruled that the arrests of the accused in question were lawful.
    2. The defence team filed a review application in the Gauteng Local Division, Johannesburg, against the ruling of the Magistrate. The review application was removed from the Civil Court Roll due to the fact that the papers and record filed by the accused/applicants were not in order. The said review application was not pursued further thereafter.
    3. The case was then remanded to 19 August and thereafter to 25 August 2016 at the request of the Accused, in order to proceed with their bail application.
    4. On 15 August 2016, the case was remanded to continue with the bail application to 25 August 2016. The matter was then postponed to 11 October 2016, on which date the Accused abandoned their bail application and thereafter the matter was postponed on a number of occasions until 17 January 2017 for the purpose of further investigations.
    5. On 17 January 2017, the State requested that the case be remanded for further investigations but, the defence objected and the matter was remanded until 25 January 2017, for a ruling in this regard.
    6. On 25 January 2017, the Court granted the State a postponement until 25 April 2017, for further investigations and for the finalisation of the indictment.
    7. On 25 April 2017, the provisional indictment was served on the accused and the case was remanded until 15 May 2017, for the finalisation of the centralisation application in respect to Count 12.
    8. On 15 May 2017, the Accused brought an application for disclosure of the case docket and the case was remanded until 29 May 2017, for disclosure.
    9. On 28 May 2017, the State disclosed the copies of the docket, and the case was remanded until 5 July 2017, in order to receive feedback with regard to requests for Mutual Legal Assistance.
    10. On 5 July 2017, the case was remanded until 11 July 2017, for further disclosure as the defence requested digital copies of the evidence and further statements.
    11. On 27 July 2017, the case was remanded by agreement until 31 August 2017, for the centralisation certificate, which was due to be issued by the

National Director of Public Prosecutions and to obtain a date for pre-trial in the high court of the Gauteng Local Division, Johannesburg.

    1. On 31 August 2017, the case was remanded to 20 October 2017, for first appearance in the High Court, Gauteng Local Division, Johannesburg.
    2. On 20 October 2017, in the pre-trial court, the case was remanded until 27 October 2017, on request of the defence team to get instructions from the accused for applications of further disclosure and access to consult with state witnesses.
    3. On 27 October 2017, the matter was remanded until 12 December 2017, for further pre-trial.
    4. On 1 November 2017, the defence team filed a request to consult with 35 State witnesses and the State responded to this request on 16 November 2017, to the effect that the request filed constitutes an irregular step and further that there is no legal obligation on the State to respond to the request filed.
    5. On 8 December 2017, the Accused attempted to file a belated and defective application to compel the State to comply with the Accused’s requests for further particulars and persisted to consult with the witnesses as requested on 1 November 2017.
    6. On 12 December 2017, the case appeared before Her Ladyship Justice Keightely, who made the following order:
      1. That the Accused bring a fresh substantive and supplemented application to consult with the State witnesses and for further information and documentation, not contained in the docket, before January 2018.
      2. The NPA to respond by 7 February 2018.
      3. The Heads of argument to be filed by 16 February 2018.
      4. That the application to be argued on 20 and 21 February 2018.
    7. On 26 January 2018 and on 2 February 2018, the accused failed to file an application for the Constitutional challenge of the Terrorism Laws as per the timelines that the defence team set.
    8. On 12 February 2018, the accused’s instructing attorney send an email to the State indicating that they are abandoning their applications.
    1. On 20 February 2018, the accused again changed their legal team and Mr. Bodania and Adv. Khan SC appeared on behalf of the Accused. The applications were withdrawn on record and the case was remanded until 27 February 2018. The accused were ordered to pay the wasted costs of the counsel appearing on behalf of the South African Police Service.
    2. The case was remanded several times for the digital evidence and issues that the defence experienced concerning the accessibility of the digital evidence. The 3-terabyte hard drive was condensed by the State to a 6GB memory stick and a hard copy of the digital evidence that the State intends to rely on during the trial, was provided to the accused.
    3. On 5 December 2018, the case was postponed to 5 December 2018, to enable the defence to prepare a request for further particulars. During this appearance, the court indicated that if there were any legal challenges regarding the request for further particulars it would have to be adjudicated in the pre-trial court during January 2019.
    4. The case was remanded until 28 January 2019 and by agreement to 27 February 2019 and thereafter to 11 June 2019 on request of the defence team to go through and consider all the evidence. An order was made that the defence team must file any requests they might have by 4 June 2019. The defence did not file any request.
    5. On 11 June 2019, the matter was remanded until 11 September 2019, final for pre- trial. On 11 September 2019 the matter was remanded until 19 September 2019, on request of the defence to take instructions on any possible interlocutory applications they wish to bring before the case is set down for trial.
    6. On 19 September 2019, the case was remanded until 7 October 2019 and 23 October 2019, for the finalisation and authorisation of the further particulars. The State’s reply to the applicants requests for the further particulars were served on the accused on 22 November 2019.
    7. The defence requested that the matter be postponed until 27 January 2020, to serve a request for further and better particulars on the State.
    1. On 27 January 2020, the State was not served with the request but, the defence brought an application for a formal bail application, and the case was remanded 20 March 2020.
    2. On 20 March 2020, the matter was postponed due, to Covid-19 restrictions and level 5 lock down that started on 26 March 2020.The matter was set down for a formal bail application on 26 May 2020.
    3. On 26 May 2020, the matter was heard through Microsoft Teams before Her Ladyship, Justice Mohalelo. The defence team once again raised a late objection that the accused were not present and therefore the bail application could not proceed whilst they were fully aware that the accused could not be brought to court due to the Covid-19 restrictions/ regulations, which were in place at the time. Her Ladyship, Justice Mohalelo struck the bail application off the court roll and held that the matter should be re-enrolled when the matter is indeed ready to proceed.
    4. On 14 September 2020, the matter was postponed for a fresh formal bail application before a new judge on 28 September 2020. On 28 September 2020 the bail applications proceeded before His Lordship, Justice Monama.
    5. On 01 October 2020, the bail applications were denied and the case was postponed provisionally to 23 October 2020, for a directive from the Judge President for a trial date and trial judge.
    6. The case was postponed to 18 January 2021, for plea and trial, a date that was confirmed by the State and the defence team.
    7. On 18 January 2021, Advocate Barnard was not able to attend court due, to exposure to Covid-19 and the fact that she had to self-isolate for a period of 10 days. The defence indicated that they will bring an interlocutory application in relation to irregularities that occurred with the transfer of the case from the Regional Court to the High Court.
    8. On 27 January 2021, the defence team proceeded with the interlocutory application and the matter was postponed to 04 February 2021, for judgement by His Lordship, Justice Mokgoathleng.
    1. On 4 February 2021, His Lordship, Justice Mokgoathleng, dismissed the interlocutory application and the defence proceeded with an application for leave to appeal against the ruling on 05 February 2021.
    2. On 5 February 2021, the application for leave to appeal was also dismissed and the defence team indicated that they wish to file a Petition Application to the Supreme Court of Appeal. The matter was remanded until 17 January 2022. provisional for the outcome of the said application to the Supreme Court of Appeal. The application by the defence team was dismissed by the Supreme Court of Appeal on 25 November 2021.
    3. The delays in the matter, after its first inception on the high court roll, were caused by the various interlocutory applications brought by the accused and the continuous change of legal teams by the accused.
    4. The next court date is 17 January 2022.
  1. The State has charged the accused with domestic law and not with international crimes. In this regard, no foreign agency could dictate to the State on domestic law.

07 January 2022 - NW2612

Profile picture: Van Der Walt, Ms D

Van Der Walt, Ms D to ask the Minister of Justice and Correctional Services

What number of (a) illegal foreign nationals have been found guilty of criminal offences in the courts of the Republic in each province in the periods (i) 1 January 2017 to 31 December 2017, (ii) 1 January 2018 to 31 December 2018, (iii) 1 January 2019 to 31

Reply:

  1. The number of illegal foreign nationals convicted is not available as the data recorded indicates the nationality but not any determination on the legality of the foreigner’s presence in the country.

Data attached reflects cases of all foreign nationals and is only available as from 1 January 2019, per province as requested in (a) (iii) to (a) (v). The data is only until

2 September 2021 as the malware attack on the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development’s system commenced on 3 September 2021. Data is therefore not yet available since then as is still being captured and updated.

  1. The following data for the period indicated in question (a) was disaggregated to reflect the (i) murder convictions; (ii) rape convictions; and (v) drug-related convictions. These offences relate to cases in which the mentioned crimes were the main charge only and not second or further charges.

(iii) Farm attacks and murders and (b)(iv) crimes against women and children: the information kept on the system is linked to charges from which the two aforementioned crimes can not be extracted on the available data.

Due to the volume of the data, details of all convicted foreigners, murder convictions, rape convictions and drug-related convictions are attached as Annexure A.

07 January 2022 - NW2600

Profile picture: Abrahams, Ms ALA

Abrahams, Ms ALA to ask the Minister of Justice and Correctional Services

What is the total number of (a) cases of abuse of the SA Social Security Agency Child Support Grant that have been referred for trial in each province since 1 January 2015 and (b) convictions regarding the specified offence in the specified period in each province;

Reply:

Although the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) has conducted prosecutions of various cases relating to South African Social Security Agency (SASSA) grants, it is only Gauteng (South Gauteng/Johannesburg), Kwa-Zulu Natal and the Eastern Cape (Mthatha) that have dealt with cases relating to the abuse of the SASSA Child Support Grants since January 2015.

(1) (a) Number of cases referred for trial

Eastern Cape (Mthatha)

23

Kwa-Zulu Natal

22

Gauteng (Johannesburg)

2

(b) Number of convictions regarding specified offences

Eastern Cape (Mthatha)

19

Kwa-Zulu Natal

4

Gauteng (Johannesburg)

0

(2) Penalties attached to convictions attained

Mthatha

The various accused persons were convicted of contravening the provisions of the Transkei Penal Code, relating to fraudulent and/ or theft of child support grant.

Sentences imposed range as follows:

Direct terms of imprisonment (6 years and 8 years direct imprisonment terms); Wholly suspended sentences, whereby the Courts in some cases ordered the accused to pay back amounts defrauded/ stolen; term of imprisonment in terms of section 276 1(i) of CPA (correctional supervision); term of imprisonment with an

option to compensate the complainant.

KwaZulu-Natal

The various accused were convicted of fraud.

(2) Penalties attached to convictions attained

 

Sentences imposed were direct terms of imprisonment (3 years and

5 years direct imprisonment terms)

Gauteng

(Johannesburg)

The cases have not yet been finalised in court

(3) Total number of cases currently in court

Mthatha

4

Kwa-Zulu Natal

15

Gauteng (Johannesburg)

1

It should be noted that charges were provisionally

withdrawn in respect of the second matter, pending finalisation of criminal investigations.

07 January 2022 - NW2711

Profile picture: Van Der Walt, Ms D

Van Der Walt, Ms D to ask the Minister of Justice and Correctional Services

What total number of (a) offenders were registered on the National Register for Sex Offenders in each province in the periods (i) 1 January 2017 to 31 December 2017,

Reply:

  1. A total number of convicted sex offenders registered on the National Register for Sex Offenders (NRSO) in each province in the periods indicated on the question is as follows:

Table 1: The NRSO Active Cases from 1 January 2017 to 15 November 2021 per province as at 7 December 2021

Name of Province

Years Conviction Registered on the NRSO

Grand Total

 

1 Jan to

31 Dec

2017

1 Jan to

31 Dec

2018

1 Jan to

31 Dec

2019

1 Jan

to 31

Dec 2020

1 Jan

to 15

Nov 2021

 

Eastern

Cape

173

57

220

19

09

478

Free State

133

108

134

28

19

422

Gauteng

101

38

69

38

37

283

Kwazulu-

Natal

157

157

186

110

30

640

Limpopo

46

55

68

37

18

224

Mpumalanga

44

83

107

17

01

252

North West

44

87

53

02

11

197

Northern

Cape

20

08

22

07

09

66

Western

Cape

130

194

161

37

39

561

GRAND

TOTAL

848

787

1 020

295

173

3 123

It must be noted that the data sets kept in the Register constantly vary due to the day-to-day activities made in the Register, which include entries and removals of

particulars of sex offenders. As permitted by section 51 of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences and Related Matters) Amendment Act, 2007, certain registered offenders do apply to the Registrar to have their particulars removed from the Register. After consideration by the Registrar, some of these applications become successful and this results in constant changes in the total number of sex offenders registered on the Register.

  1. (i) With regard to the total number of applications received through Form 8 in each province, it is important to first note that the Department commenced with the issuing of clearance certificates in September 2019, and will therefore be unable to provide data sets prior to this date. The delayed issuing of certificates was due to the long process of developing the electronic Register, as prescribed by the Act, and also building the system’s integration internally. It was a process necessary to address challenges relating to data contamination, whilst building a system that preserves data integrity.

Form 8 prescribed by the Regulations on National Register for Sex Offenders relates to applications for certificates by person/licensing authority/relevant authority in respect of particulars of another. The spectrum of these applicants, therefore, includes employers of employees who work directly with children or persons with mental disabilities, as contemplated in section 44 of the Act.

However, some of these employers prefer having their employees applying directly to the Registrar using the prescribed Form 7. In keeping to the question, this response will therefore exclude the Form 7 applications for clearance certificates and zoom into the Form 8 applications. The table below, therefore, gives the total number of Form 8 applications in each region during the period of 1 September 2019 to 15 November 2021 as follows:

Table 2: Total number of Form 8 Applications received during the period of 1 September 2019 to 15 November 2021

FORM 8 APPLICATIONS FOR CLEARANCE CERTIFICATES

Application Type

1 Sept to 31

Dec 2019

1 Jan to 31 Dec

2020

1 Jan to 15 November

2021

Total

Form 8

8 094

5 567

1 044

14 705

The figures above exclude the backlog of 1 972 applications accumulated during the Department’s system downtime which halted entry into the NRSO from 6 September 2021 to 19 November 2021. A Performance Recovery Plan has been developed to speedily eliminate this backlog, and a systems’ enhancement process has also begun.

(ii) The Department is unable to provide statistics on Form 29 applications as the Regulations on the National Register for Sex Offenders prescribe Forms 1 up to

11. Therefore, there are no prescribed forms beyond Form 11. It is the Regulations on the National Child Protection Register that prescribe Form 29, and this Register is maintained by the Department of Social Development.

06 January 2022 - NW2537

Profile picture: Breytenbach, Adv G

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

(1) Whether, with reference to the recent ransomware attack on his department’s Information and Communication Technology (ICT) systems, the information that became encrypted after being targeted has been decrypted; if not, why not; if so; what are the relevant details; (2) whether (a) the targeted information is now available to his department in its entirety and (b) his department’s ICT system is fully restored and productive at full capacity; if not, why not, in each case; if so; what are the relevant details in each case; (3) whether his department has been able to determine exactly what information was targeted; if not, what is the position in this regard; if so, what (a) percentage of information has been compromised and (b) has become of the compromised information; (4) whether the affected persons have been informed that their personal information may have been compromised; if not, why not; if so; what are the relevant details; (5) whether his department has (a) been able to identify the ransomware attackers and (b)(i) received a ransom demand and (ii) paid ransom to the ransomware attacker(s); if not, what is the position in each case; if so, what steps is his department taking in each case?NW2960E

Reply:

1) The information or data that was encrypted was never decrypted because it needs a special decryption key which the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development does not have. The ransomware attacker is the only one with the decryption key.

2) (a) The information that was encrypted is still there in an encryption format, there is no way of decrypting the information. The focus was never to decrypt the information, instead the information and systems was restored from the backup tapes.

(b) The systems are fully restored and productive, but due to capacity constraints, the systems are not running at full capacity.

3) The Department is fully aware of the information that was targeted.

(a) The Department is unable to quantify the targeted information in terms of percentages.

(b) The Department cannot tell with certainty as to what happened to the compromised information.

4) The Department is not aware of any information that was exfiltrated, there’s an ongoing forensic investigation by South African Police Services (SAPS), and hopefully the final SAPS report will help us to answer that question.

5) (a) So far, the Department is unable to identify the ransomware attackers and hopefully the SAPS forensic investigation report will reveal such information.
(b) (i) No ransom demand letter was received by the Department.
(ii) No ransom amount was paid to the attackers.

 

06 January 2022 - NW2538

Profile picture: Breytenbach, Adv G

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

(1) Whether the Information Regulator was informed immediately once it became apparent that the recent ransomware attack was launched on his Department’s Information and Communication Technology systems; if not, why not; if so, on what date was the Information Regulator informed of the recent ransomware attack; 2) whether he has found that his department co-operated fully with the Information Regulator’s investigation into the recent ransomware attack; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details; (3) whether his Department provided full details of the information that was breached to the Information Regulator; if not, what is the position in this regard; if so, what are the relevant details?

Reply:

1) The Department of Justice and Constitutional Development informed the Information Regulator as soon as it was confirmed that the Department has been affected by a ransomware attack.

2) The Department fully co-operated with the Information Regulator in terms of information sharing, guidance and their participation in the system restoration process.

3) As at 1 December 2021, the analysis and/or forensic investigation is still inconclusive in terms of the exact nature of the information that was sent outside of the Department as part of the breach. This information should present itself as part of the forensic investigation as expected to be conducted from the case that was opened with the South African Police Service. Therefore, the Information Regulator will be informed as soon as the information becomes available.

 

06 January 2022 - NW2308

Profile picture: Marais, Mr S

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

By what date will he furnish Mr S J F Marais with a reply to question 1996 which was published on 27 August 2021 and to which a reply is outstanding in excess of 39 working days beyond the permissible 10 working days provided for by Rule 145(5)(a) and contrary to the provision of section 92(3) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, which requires of Cabinet members to act in accordance with the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, and to provide Parliament with full and regular reports concerning matters under their control?

Reply:

The Reply to Parliamentary Question no. 1996 was submitted to the National Assembly on 19 November 2021 for tabling. The delay was caused by waiting for a response from the NCACC.

END.