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• 8 cases withdrawn / prosecution declined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.

______________________________________________________________________

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

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.

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Reply:

(1) An IT Audit was conducted on 14 December 2021, on the email of the Management Area to verify the existence of the email sent by next of kin (Anette Nel), however, no record could be found for the date of 04 December 2020. It should be noted that the offender was no longer incarcerated in Boksburg Medium Correctional Centre on the mentioned date as he was released on 07 December 2019.

The offender was admiteed in Boksburg Correctional Facility on 25 November 2019 to serve an incarceration period of 14 days on a “Writ of Contempt of Court” dated 16 October 2019 by Pretoria High Court.

If such application was received, the Head of Correctional Centre would have complied with applicable sections 26 and 27 of the Mental Health Care Act, 2002 in dealing with the request as follows:

Application for assisted care, treatment and rehabilitation services 27. (1) (a) An application reffered to in section 26 may only be made by the spouse, next of kin, partner, associate, parent or guardian of a Mental Health care user, but where the- (b) the application refered to in paragraph (a) must have seen the mental health care user within seven days before making the application. (c) state the date, time and place where the user was last seen by the applicant within seven days before the application is made

No records exist in the visitors book to prove that the next of kin saw the offender within the required period by permission of the Head of Correctional Centre for this purpose. The offender was released on the expiry of his sentence on 07 December 2019.

(2) Not applicable
(3) Not applicable
(4) Not applicable
(5) Not applicable

END

Reply:

(1) The Parolee Offender was subjected to the parole conditions as contemplated in section 52 of the Correctional Services Act, 1998 (Act No. 111 of 1998), over and above section 52(1)(r) of the Act was also applicable. Upon being placed on parole the parolee remained in the custody of State Security Agency (SSA) as per his parole conditions.

(2) At the time of assuming my duties as the Minister I was not aware of the allegations that parolee is paid as parolees do not receive payments from the Department of Correctional Services. The Parolee is not being paid or sustained by the Department of Correctional Services. The alleged services rendered to the parolee should be directly asked to the State Security Agency as the subject of an engagement between the State Security Agency.

Reply:

The Constitutional court handed down its judgment on 4 December 2020. This judgment affirmed JICS’s important watchdog role over the Department of Correctional Services (DCS) in South Africa’s democracy. It also set as a constitutional requirement that JICS be structurally, operationally and financially independent -- plus that in the public perception it also be seen as independent.

An Inter-Departmental Assessment Committee (IAC) was constituted and established by the then-Minister of Public Service and Administration (MPSA), Minister Mchunu. Significantly, the IAC recommended that JICS be established as an autonomous National Government Component.

This elicited also the support of the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development and Correctional Services (DOJ&CD), Minister Lamola.

Since this judgment, JICS has compiled a draft JICS Bill which will provide the amendments the Constitutional Court required.

It is up to Parliament to confirm when the draft JICS Bill will be introduced. The Court has given Parliament 24 months to fix the problem it identified by amending the Act. The JICS draft Bill was promptly submitted to DCS, National Treasury (NT), the Department of Public Service and Administration (DPSA), DOJ&CD, the office of the Chief State Law Adviser and other stakeholders for comment. Various comments were received and incorporated into the draft JICS Bill (except from NT and DCS).

JICS is leading the amendment process of those sections that are relevant to JICS, and in crafting an ideal draft JICS Bill.

Other stakeholders are better placed to provide fuller details on what the amending legislation will provide for.

This is because DCS is the Department responsible for the Correctional Services Act, 111 of 2008, which will require simultaneous repeal and amendment when the JICS Bill is passed. (Some of the provisions to be repealed or amended include Chapters 9 and 10 of the CSA.)

With the prior authorisation of the Minister of Justice and Correctional Services, JICS approached DPSA to gain advice on how to ensure greater independence. Officials of DPSA advised JICS to research the various Government Forms currently available and also assisted with presentations and expert advice. Interactions took place with the offices of the Minister, Deputy Minister, DCS, DPSA and National Treasury. After the IAC considered all possible options, it recommended that JICS be constituted as a National Government Component.

The funding model for JICS to be established as a National Government Component must be supported by National Treasury.

JICS has meticulously sought to engage with all stakeholders. JICS does not however have a date as to when the JICS draft Bill will be introduced to Parliament by Minister Lamola, or when any further engagement between stakeholders will take place to ensure that the process is taken further.

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.

Reply:

(a) The matter regarding the release of the mentioned person on medical parole is pending in court and therefore the Department will not be able to respond until court proceedings are finalised.

(b) Not applicable to Correctional Services

END

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.

 

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.

 

Reply:

It is difficult to ascertain the exact backlog, as many of the clients are walk-in clients who could not be assisted during the system downtime, but have now been flocking to the offices since the system was restored.

All staff is 100% back in the offices, in line with Adjusted Alert level 1 regulations.

Officials are doing their utmost to assist as many applicants as possible in the time available and also need to deal with applications which were received via post and courier during the downtime period as well as still received on a daily basis.

After the system restoration the Guardian’s Fund continued with the payment of recurring maintenance.

The fingerprint verification link with Home Affairs was also off for some time, even after

the department’s systems were restored. Due to the biometric fingerprint facility (MOVIT) being unavailable, first time and final inheritance could however only be processed again from the 15th of November, when the new finger print verification server was restored. These payments could not be made earlier due to the inherent risk of fraud and to protect the interests of the beneficiaries for whom we hold funds.

Officials are working tirelessly to catch up on the backlog created and the new fingerprint verification has so far been deployed to 6 Master’s offices across the country.

The further rollout is currently a priority and should be restored to all Masters offices soon.

Overtime has been approved for all offices in a bid to address the backlogs and offices are doing their utmost in the period to ease the pressure and rendering services to those in need.

 

 

Overtime has been approved until 20 December 2021 after which a further assessment

will be made. However, it is envisaged, and offices are encouraged to ensure, that the

backlog is drastically reduced by then. Offices are however still experiencing some

technical difficulties on the systems from time-to-time which slows down performance in

our offices. Master’s Offices are open throughout the year, except on weekends and

public holidays – they do not close.

3 | P a g e

Reply:

(1) Below is the account of all the court appearances in this matter:

(a) 29 January 2021: First appearance in High Court for pre-trial. The accused was absent and not brought to court from Pollsmoor as he was transferred to Goodwood Prison. A requisition was issued

(b) 3 February 2021: Accused appeared for his first pre-trial. Defence requested postponement to consult with accused.

(c) 19 March 2021: Second pre-trial. Defence indicated they were ready for trial.

Case postponed to 31 May 2021 for trial. The National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) expedited trial date, and the case was given priority.

(d) 21 April 2021: Judge President (JP) issued instruction that no new trials were to start in May 2021 as there were too many partly-heard cases, and older cases were being prioritised. The JP was requested to consider this case, but no exception was made.

(e) 31 May 2021: Trial was postponed to 16 May 2022. This was the first date when the Legal Aid defence counsel was available. The prosecution asked the defence counsel to explore whether he could make himself available on an earlier date, but he confirmed to the presiding judge he was not available until 16 May 2022.

Legal Aid could not provide another counsel.

(2) The DNA test results have been obtained.

(3) The NPA arranged an early date on 31 May 2021 but older cases were given priority. The NPA asked for the defence counsel to make himself or another Advocate available for trial in October 2021. The NPA received a written reply on

7 July 2021 that Legal Aid did not have any practitioner available to commence with the trial on 25 October 2021.

 

Reply:

The National Prosecuting Authority has updated me on the investigation into the deathsof the late Chief Albert Luthuli and Mr Imam Haron as indicated below:

(A)Investigation into the death of late Mr Imam Haron

(1) Investigation at this stage is incomplete. Section 17A (1) of the Inquests Act (as amended by Act 145 of 1992) formulates the procedure to be followed in respect of an inquest to be re-opened. Subsections (2) and (3) then set out how such re- opened inquest is to be conducted, as regards to inter alia, evidence is to be led,subpoena of witnesses, recording of findings.

It is therefore incumbent on the investigators and prosecutors to ensure that the quality of the evidence gathered is of such a nature that it is complete and admissible, in order for it to comply with the interests of justice by enabling the presiding officer to have a full and detailed picture from which to draw inferences.

To this end, because of the age of the records, documents and evidence tendered in the initial inquests such as these, many challenges are posed such as the passing-on of witnesses. There are rules of evidence which would guide that the best evidence rule is to be followed. As is clear from the political history, the preservation of official records and access to them also poses difficulties. Furthermore, in certain instances, documents that are intended to be admitted as evidence, had been declared as classified and this requires a process of declassification.

Moreover, the evidence tendered in the original inquest must be re-examined to test the veracity of the findings of same. To this end, very often objective expert opinion is required in an assessment of the evidence placed before the court conducting the initial inquest. Consequently, this would require that the more accurate information is is provided to such expert, the more reliable such expert’s findings. This is also to ensure that the process is in line with the interests of justice.

The aforementioned are all considerations that pose challenges preventing the re-opening of such inquests.

(2) There has been considerable progress in the last three (3) months in the Imam Haron matter regarding the requests of the family. The family of Imam Haron were involved in initiating the investigations into the material issues at play in this inquest.

Additional reports and statements were furnished.

Several engagements have been held with members of the concerned family, and we have committed to a clear line of communication with stakeholders and participants in order to facilitate this process. There are ongoing consultations with witnesses and an expert witness on the matter.

(3) The third question is always difficult to respond to satisfactorily, as much of what is to be done to achieve our goals is dependent on other stakeholders with their own administrative procedures and processes. A concerted effort is being made to expedite the investigation to enable an informed decision to be made.

(B)Investigation into the death of Chief Albert Luthuli

(1) A thorough investigation is still underway to place the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) in a position to make an informed decision. In respect of a section 17A re-opening, the Director of Public Prosecutions makes a recommendation to theMinister for the re-opening of an initial inquest, by a designated Judge, who is also empowered to take further evidence generally or in respect of any matter, in effect for the purposes of the reconsideration of the entire evidence including the existing record.

(2) Yes, extensive progress has been made. The family was consulted and witness statements were obtained. Moreover, for the past four (4) months, the prosecutors dealing with this matter have been waiting for the procurement of an expert to reconstruct the crime scene for the purposes of determining whether or not there are prospects of re-opening the inquest into the death of Chief Albert Luthuli. A three- phrase approach was proposed by the expert as follows:

(a) Phase One

Development of the crash Preliminary Engineering Analysis – the design and performance of the locomotive and the impact force associated with its contact with the head of the late Chief Luthuli.

(b) Phase Two

Applying the crash Preliminary Engineering Analysis – to develop a simulation model of the entire scenario in view of the locomotive design, the late Chief Luthuli andthree possible scenarios of the crash.

(c) Phase Three

Consultation between the prosecutor assigned to the matter and the expert witness for evidential material.

(3) The Directorate for Priority Crimes Investigation (DPCI) is in the process of canvassing the challenge of costs and experts. This is not an NPA process. Attaching a time frame is not conducive until all the evidence is placed before the prosecutor concerned.

 

Reply:

1) (a)(i) The provincial breakdown of the number of cases finalised during 2017 to 2020 is attached as Annexure “A”.

(b)(i) The NPA does not record rhino related prosecutions but does record the number of accused convicted, as reflected in the table on Annexure “A”

(b)(ii): The NPA does not record the number of accused released on bail involving matters of rhino prosecutions. The Department of Justice and Constitutional  Development does not keep such information either, but has however advised that the charge of “ Possession of an elephant tusk or a rhinoceros horn without he or she being the holder of a permit which authorizes him or her to do so” , has recently been added in the 2021/22 financial year. Therefore, the Department will not be able to report on the rhino matters for the years in question. However, in the near future, the Department would be able to supply such information.

(b)(iii): The Department of Correctional Services has further advised that their

Department does not keep information on bail granted or “ jail sentences” handed down.

2) The relevant department to respond is the Department of Forestry, Fisheries and Environment (DFFE).

 

Reply:

1.It should be noted that not all former officials have received their payment. This is due to the system utilised to process calculations providing incorrect outcomes.

(1)(a)(i) Some former officials have not been paid due to the department having to suspend the process and subject all payments to an audit due to discrepancies in percentages used to calculate payments.

(1)(a)(ii) Rectification is underway with regard to all officials that were paid incorrect amounts.

(1)(b) The Department anticipates finalising this process during the 2022/23 financial year due to the magnitude of transactions to be audited. It must be noted that out of 6 306 transactions, 3 567 (57%) have been concluded.

2. The Department will not be paying interest. DCS was compelled to undertake the verification process to avoid overpayments to ex – officials as it would be difficult if not impossible to recover such amounts.

3. No, the Department does not have different regulations and/or policy positions for serving and former officials. The Department opted to initially pay serving officials as they are on the payroll system of Government (PERSAL) and as such processing such emoluments was less onerous administratively, however after commencement of the process the errors in calculations were discovered and a comprehensive audit was commissioned to rectify / prevent any errors. As such former officials’ payments are pending finalisation of the audits.

END

Reply:

The extradition proceedings against Shepherd Huxley Bushiri and Mary Bushiri (the Bushiris) commenced on the 8th March 2021 before the Chief Resident Magistrate’s Court in Lilongwe, Malawi. During these proceedings, Counsel for the Bushiris brought a number of preliminary applications relating to the following issues:

a) The Magistrate should recuse himself from the proceedings. This application was dismissed.

b) The State is using SADC Protocol when it is not law in Malawi. This application was dismissed.

c) The State should furnish counsel for the Bushiris with the transcript of the bail hearing of the Bushiris in South Africa. This application was successful. The State has since complied with the order.

d) The various witnesses of the State of South Africa should appear in person in the extradition proceedings in order to:

(i) Authenticate documents; and

(ii) Sign depositions.

This application was successful.

Counsel for the Bushiris applied for the review of all applications that were dismissed. The High Court dismissed the application without a hearing.

The State made an application to the Chief Resident’s Magistrate Court for the review of the decision regarding witnesses, and asked the Court to order that witnesses must appear through video conferencing or link. The Court dismissed the application.

The State then applied for a review in the High Court of the order of the Chief Resident’s Magistrate Court regarding witnesses. The review was argued in Court on 21 July 2021.

The High Court directed both parties to file submissions on whether the State witnesses from South Africa could testify via video link. The matter has since been adjourned pending the delivery of the order on a date to be communicated by the Court through the office of the Registrar.

Reply:

The matter is sub judice and therefore the Department is not in a position to respond until court proceedings are finalised.

END

Reply:

a) it should be noted that in 2019/20 a total o f28 attempted escapes were reported, whilst a total of 22 were reported om 2020/21. Based on investigations conducted no officials were implicated in these incidents.

b) No arrests were made as no staff was implicated in these attempted escapes.

END

Reply:

1. The rights of the arrested, detained and accused persons are clearly indicated in Section 35 of the constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996. This include the right of the accused:

a) to be brought before a court as soon as reasonably possible but not later than 48 hours after the arrest, or the end of the first court day after the expiry of the 48 hours;

b) to be charged or informed of the reasons for the detention to continue or to be released; and

c) to choose and consult with the legal representation.

During the civil unrest in Kwa-Zulu Natal and Gauteng, the Bill of Rights was observed. The magistrates in which the civil unrest cases occurred managed to process all matters brought before the court in line with the Constitution. Cases were reported and enrolled to the following courts as the consequences of civil unrest:

No.	Name of the Court	No. of Cases Enrolled
1	Pietermaritzburg	30
2	Impendle	4
3	Mooi River	4
4	Ladysmith	34
5	Newcastle	15
6	Dundee	6
7	Paulpietersburg	1
8	Nqutu	30
9	Durban And Branch Courts	256
10	Empangeni	40
11	Ngwelezane	12
12	Kwambonambi Periodical Court	2
13	Richards Bay Branch Court	8
14	Kwamsane	6
15	Mtubatuba	3
16	Ongoye	12
17	Hlabisa	3
18	Hluhluwe	4
19	Mtunzini	1
20	Nyoni Periodical Court	10
21	Stanger	19
22	Verulam Including Branch Courts	100
23	Emlazi	19
24	Emzumbe	21
25	Scottburgh	17
26	Umbumbulu	16
27	Vulamehlo	6
28	Sawoti	1
29	Port Shepstone	20
30	Harding	9
31	Ramsgate	15
32	Ixopo	68
33	Phungashe	15
34	Matatiele	7
35	Izingolweni	29
36	Umzimkhulu	30
	Total Number No. of Cases Enrolled	873

The JCPS Steering Committee was established in which the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development participates. The above mentioned Steering Committee includes key stakeholders such as the South African Police Service, Legal Aid South Africa and National Prosecuting Authority. The mandate of this Steering Committee was to ensure that all cases are processed promptly and in observance of the Bill of Rights enshrined in the Constitution.

2. There was no record of any confiscation of property which was discussed by the Integrated Task Team which was established to monitor the civil unrest. This does not exclude the possibility that if such information could have been reported to various Police stations, the matter will be placed on the agenda of the Integrated Task Team, and should it emerge of any confiscated property during unrest, an appropriate solution will be discussed by the relevant law enforcement agencies

Reply:

1. The NCACC is scheduled to meet every last Thursday of the month. These meetings are planned to take place from February to November. In the event that the Parliamentary Program and some important matters present challenges as regards meetings being held as scheduled, the NCACC makes up for such events. To date the NCACC does not have any outstanding meetings and meeting schedule is under control.

2. The NCACC applies the criteria as envisaged in the Act, Regulations and Policy considerations. The protests or reports as alluded to have no bearing on the decision of the NCACC. When an applications is kept in abeyance (under consideration) pending authorization, it for the NCACC to satisfy itself that outstanding issues about such an application are resolved prior to authorization.

 

3. It is never or it should not be a consideration to seek to harm the Defence Industry and certainly the NCACC would not subscribe to such a notion. The Permits that are Under Consideration have a value of R15,8 Million for Saudi Arabia and R3,8 Billion for the United Arab Emirates, respectively.

4. When a matter is placed under consideration (UC) the risk as identified by the review process must have a corresponding risk mitigation response in place with satisfies the minimization of such risk to a residual risk in order to proceed with a recommendation to consider authorization.

5. It is anticipated that the matters outstanding as regards Saudi Arabia and the UAE will be resolved in September 2021. However, the NCACC authorizes the Categories of Controlled items that fall outside the circle of risk identified. It never or ought not to be a consideration to seek to harm the Defence Industry and certainly the NCACC would not subscribe to such a notion, as it is not sustainable on any grounds.

6. The assertion or otherwise of End User Certificates violations remain unproven to date. However, should there be violations by entities registered under the Act, the NCACC will not hesitate to act against such transgressors of prescripts.

1. I as Chairperson and on behalf of my Committee remain seized of matters of the NCACC in order to resolve and effectively manage Conventional Arms Control as mandated under the Act.

END

Reply:

a) The following efficiency measures were implemented by the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development to absorb the cut:

i) Reduction of the personnel headcount by only filling critical vacant posts in order to manage the compensation of employees’ budget within the set budget ceiling.

ii) Paced down the construction of new courts and prioritised the refurbishment as well as upgrading of existing infrastructure.

iii) Constrained expenditure on cost containment items such as catering, travel and subsistence, venue hire, etc. by maintaining a negative growth on its allocation, each year.

iv) Strengthened controls on the management of service providers’ performance to seal the expenditure leaks.

v) For high value procurement, allowed the participation of departmental entities and sister departments under the Ministry of Justice and Correctional Services in order to take advantage of economies of scale.

vi) Reviewed Annual Performance Plan targets to focus on high impact outcomes.

b) The measures implemented with regards to compensation of employees are short term until the economy in the country stabilizes. These measures will have a negative impact on service delivery where a reduction in frontline services is implemented. Managers are required to put mitigation measures in place to reduce the impact on the public.

a) The Office of the Chief Justice (OCJ) has implemented the following measures to reconcile the recent budget cuts with the key cost drivers of the Department:

• Reprioritization and filling of only critical vacancies; and
• Reprioritization of operational expenditure to provide for virtual operations.

1. (b) These mitigation measures negatively impact on the capacity of the OCJ to resource the Superior Courts in relation to human resources, ICT equipment and replacement of ageing ICT infrastructure which has a detrimental effect on judicial functions (case processing / adjudications); court modernisation and access to justice due to a reduction in the number of circuit courts.

Reply:

There is no additional budgetary impact being brought about by the amendments published in the Government Gazette on 6 August 2021. Legal Aid South Africa re-introduced the provision of Civil Legal Services in about 2004. Currently, the service delivery split between criminal and civil services with 87% on Criminal Defence Services and 13% on Civil Services.

The table below reflects the service delivery split between criminal and civil matters over the last six (6) financial years.

Financial Year	Criminal	Civil	Total
	Number of matters	%	Number of matters	%
2020/21	269 388	91%	27 818	9%	297 206
2019/20	351 061	87%	51 177	13%	402 238
2018/19	362 213	87%	53 990	13%	416 203
2017/18	371 202	87%	55 415	13%	426 617
2016/17	385 972	87%	58 990	13%	444 962
2015/16	388 692	88%	52 364	12%	441 056

The provision of civil legal aid has always been included in the Regulations since they came into operation on 22 August 2017 but these amendments have been effected to the Regulations to address the following specific aspects:

a) Regulation 9: Implements a waiting period where there are capacity constraints at offices due to the reduction in the Budget and thus the available resources. Priority matters will however not be subject to a waiting period.

b) Regulations 11, 13 and 23: These regulations address technical errors in the wording to align to the intended meaning of the Regulation.

c) Regulation 14: The amended regulation now excludes the enforcement of CCMA awards from legal aid except in circumstances where the client has not been able to enforce the award with the assistance of the CCMA Regulations. This will reduce the instances in which legal aid can be granted to enforce CCMA Awards.

d) Regulation 15: This brings about a limitation to the types of divorce matters that can be assisted on legal aid. This will thus decrease the divorce matters in which legal aid can be granted.

e) Regulation 27: The effect of this amendment is to bring about an automatic increase in the Legal Aid SA means test to keep pace with inflation.

f) Regulation 31 and 32: It will be possible to provide assistance in both criminal and civil cases where applicants exceeds the means test but where the circumstances justify the granting of legal aid but subject to a contribution being paid for such assistance.

Reply:

a) The Special Investigating Unit has informed me as follows:

Proclamation R42 of 2019

The allegations relate to the irregular award of contracts to Buthelezi EMS and its associated companies for the provisioning of patient transportation services and construction related services in breach of the prevailing procurement prescripts and on terms which are to detriment of the North-West Department of Health (NWDOH). The allegations further extend to the administration of the contracts in that the allegations received by the Special Investigating Unit (SIU) refer to fraudulently inflated invoices, non-delivery of services and the irregular approval of requests to increase the contract prices.

Outcomes as per the ongoing investigation:

(i) The order for the freezing of the Head of Department (HOD)’s pension was granted. The pension amount is R2 125 113, 58.

(ii) Civil proceedings have been instituted at the Special Tribunal for the recovery of R30 000 000.00 pre-payment. The matter is opposed by the HOD, and the SIU is awaiting a court date.

The investigation is ongoing and expected to be finalised by end of November 2021.

b) Covid-19 Investigation Proclamation R23 of 2020

Allegation: The procurement of, or contracting for goods, works and services including the construction, refurbishment, leasing, occupation and use of immovable property during or in respect of the national state disaster as declared by Government Notice No. 313 of 15 March 2021 by or on behalf of the State institutions, and payments made in respect thereof.

The SIU is investigating twenty-one (21) service providers with a total value of R15 million. The following are the outcomes of the investigation:

(i) Number of referrals for disciplinary action against officials: One (1) against Station Manager

(ii) Number of referrals to the National Prosecuting Authority and/or Asset Forfeiture Unit: One (1) against Store Manager

(iii) Number of referrals to the South African Police Service (SAPS): Seven (7) service providers for charging VAT when they were not registered VAT vendors

(iv) Rand value of civil proceedings instituted: R256 000,00 against one (1) service provider.

(v) Rand value of potential cash to be recovered: Acknowledgement of debt against six (6) service providers for inflation of PPE’s prices for the value of R1 090 148,00

(vi) Rand value of actual cash recovered: R19 591,00 against two (2) service providers for inflation of PPE’s prices.

The investigation is ongoing and expected to be finalized by the end of October 2021.

Reply:

The Department of Correctional Services has embarked on a clean audit drive and one of the pillars is to prevent and reduce irregular expenditure which will also address poor financial management. To date One Thousand and Eighty Two cases (1 082) of both irregular, fruitless and wasteful expenditure have been investigated out of one thousand three hundred and twenty (1320) cases reported, representing 82%.

On cases that are completed, the Department will result in disciplinary action against all transgressors, additionally there has been a collaborative effort between DCS and National Treasury to condone transactions where action is taken as this will reduce the quantum of irregular expenditure that is required to be disclosed in the Annual Financial Statements.

The Department has further enhanced its internal control environment within Supply Chain Management by introducing Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs), probity audits before bids are awarded and have established a Departmental Control Committee to manage awards on quotations.

END

Reply:

1. There is no lack of efficiency in the Department in responding to written enquiries.

2. Yes, the Department has a responsibility to respond to enquiries and responds to enquiries on a daily basis. The Department aims at assisting members of the public who lodge enquires and DCS ensures that responses are provided within a reasonable period. Functionaries at Correctional Centres, Management Area, Regional and Head Office level, who are responsible to manage and respond to enquiries registered by members of the public were appointed. The Department also launched a call centre contact number (086 0000 327) to further make it easier for members of the public to register enquiries telephonically and receive responses.

3. The enquiry on whether the profile report of offender Gregory Cloete (Registration No: 203788971) had Social Worker and Psychologist reports when it served before the Minister was received on 24 August 2021. The enquiry was on the same day forwarded to Western Cape Region with a return date of 31 August 2021. A letter of response addressed to Mr M.G.E Hendricks will be drafted upon receipt of the feedback. Accordingly, there is no failure to respond to the said enquiry.

It is requested that all enquiries regarding offenders should be routed through prescribed channels for Members of Parliament to be assisted as efficiently and effectively as feasible.

END

Reply:

During November 2020, a request was received from the National Director of Public Prosecutions (NDPP) for the extradition of Shepherd Huxley Bushiri and Mary Bushiri from the Republic of Malawi to the Republic of South Africa to stand trial on various charges. The request was subsequently delivered at the office of the Attorney-General in Malawi on 5 December 2020. The extradition hearing proceeded in the Lilongwe Magistrate’s Court in Malawi.

On 19 April 2021, the attorneys acting on behalf of the Bushiri’s argued in court that South Africa could not rely on the SADC Protocol on Extradition as the Protocol has not been domesticated in accordance with section 211 of the Republic of Malawi’s Constitution. The court ruled that even though the Protocol had not yet been domesticated, that Malawi’s Extradition Act clearly demonstrates in the First Schedule to that Act that South Africa is a designated country for purposes of extradition, and therefore ruled in favour of the prosecution.

The matter was then postponed to Friday 4 June 2021, for the extradition hearing to start. During the proceedings the defense argued that the witnesses who would testify against the Bushiri’s in South Africa should travel to Malawi to give evidence during the extradition proceedings. The Magistrate’s Court ruled in favour of the defense that the witnesses should travel to Malawi. The DPP in Malawi advised the Department that they are of the view that the Magistrate’s Court misdirected itself as regards what amounts to a preliminary inquiry, and that Section 9 of the Extradition Act of Malawi never envisaged physical presence of witnesses in court during an extradition hearing.

The Office of the DPP in Malawi filed a review application to review and set aside the Magistrate Court’s ruling. The review application was heard on 21 July 2021, and judgment is expected soon.

Reply:

The Magistrates Commission was ready to proceed with the disciplinary matter since the previous response after it had already appointed two Officers to Lead Evidence (OLE). In the process in getting the OLEs to be trial ready one of the OLE, Regional Magistrate Johannesburg, indicated that he will be leaving the Judiciary to go on pension during 2022 and the matter will not be finalised by the time he leaves. Based on that reason he requested to be withdrawn as OLE.

The remaining OLE, Tshwane Judicial Administrative Region acting Head, acting Chief Magistrate has also requested to be withdrawn.

His reasons were that the matter related to Mr Nzimande comprised 165 counts, inclusive of alternative charges, of which according to him, will require months of preparation. He indicated that the OLEs must be able to have the required time on hand (many months) to thoroughly prepare for this complex matter prior it even reaching a stage of being pre-trial ready. That responsibility alone is certainly not a one-man-task and definitely requires a minimum of two persons to prepare for the leading of the evidence. It is also important to note that persons appointed as OLEs should have no prior knowledge of the merits and/or evidence to the matter and thus the preparation will include working through all the evidence, the task which consist of many lever-arch files of documents and statements.

He requested to withdraw as OLE as he will not be able to find himself in a position to time-manage his personal life in order to give this matter the time that it deserves, together with some other reasons he chose not to disclose.

The Commission has approached the Department to facilitate the appointment of other component persons to lead evidence and a team has been identified for this purpose.

Reply:

In answering the above question, it is important to first understand the concept of “maintenance defaulter” in its correct perspective. A Maintenance Defaulter is a person against whom a maintenance court order has been issued but who fails to comply in full or in part with the said order for a period exceeding 10 days from the date of the issuing of the said order. The above definition therefore indicates that a distinction must be drawn between parties who fail to comply with maintenance court orders and who are simply not contributing financially to the upbringing of their children.

In this regard, the following should be noted:

1. The total number of maintenance defaulters that the Maintenance Courts has dealt with since 1 April 2021 to 30 July 2021 is 16435. Of the 16435 cases, enforcement orders in the form of Emolument attachment orders and Warrant of Attachment of Debts were issued in respect of 2555 cases.
2. The number of defaulter’s cases has increased since the outbreak of Covid 19 due to the fact that at the end of the 2020/2021 financial year, the Maintenance Courts have dealt with approximately 35 000 maintenance cases. However, the 2021/2022 financial year is left with 8 months before it comes to an end, but the figures are already drawing close to half of last year’s figures. This may be attributed to job losses as a result of Covid 19 and changes in parties’ personal circumstances.
3. New applications could not be enrolled during the first lock down which was proclaimed in March 2020. Similarly pending inquiries could not be proceeded with. The situation returned to normal with the announcement of lower alert levels. The courts are grappling with the backlog of matters which accumulate during the lockdown

 

Reply:

1. The Department has conducted an investigation into the trend of the maintenance defaulters and found that most defaulters do not want to be found so as to avoid the maintenance inquiry processes and further that when they are found they conceal their means or distort the extent thereof so as to appear indigent and become exonerated from the liability to pay maintenance.

The investigation further revealed that there are two forms of economies in South Africa being Formal and Informal economies and as such most defaulters who claimed not to have means to pay for maintenance are within the informal economy. The business concerns are not registered for tax and the defaulters do not have bank accounts in their own names and thus making it difficult for the Maintenance Courts to process the maintenance cases.

In light of the aforesaid, the Maintenance Defaulters Track and Trace System was introduced. Initially it was introduced through the service provider who provided information of the defaulters such as full names, contact details, property ownership and business ownership.

The Department decided to strengthen the Maintenance Defaulters Track and Trace System by training the Maintenance Officers and Maintenance Investigators on the electronic system and investigation processes. So far Maintenance Investigators and Maintenance Officers in the Western Cape, Limpopo and Kwazulu-Natal provinces have been trained on Track and Trace System. Such training remains ongoing.

The officials in the Northern Cape Province were trained on 30 August to 3 September 2021.

The Department is developing a framework through which the concealment of income and assets gained in the informal economy can be traced for the courts to be able to grant maintenance orders in such cases.

2. The following challenges/ obstacles were encountered in implementing the plan:

2.1 The Department had advertised a tender for a service provider to provide On-line/Electronic Tracing Services. The Department received the bids from prospective service providers and the said bids were found to be way above the funds available on the budget for this purpose. This resulted in the tender process being suspended so as to enable the Department to approach National Treasury for additional funding of the project.

2.2 Covid-19 related challenges which resulted in the planned trainings being cancelled owing to officials going on sick leave, quarantine and self-isolation. Inter-provincial travel ban was also implemented in Gauteng and as such trainers who are based in Gauteng could not travel out of Gauteng to other provinces.

2.3 Lack of civil enforcement capacity and forensic investigation skills and capability.

2.4 Lack of tools of trade such as laptops, cellphones and motor vehicles which are necessary for Maintenance Investigators to conduct physical investigation of cases.

2.5 Introduction of the Protection of Personal Information (POPI) Act 4 of 2013 which resulted in the training format being revised.

2.6 Justice College was also approached to develop a Forensic Investigation Training for Maintenance Investigators and Officers with the objective to further strengthen the System. Justice College has advised that they will have to procure the services of the curriculum expert to assist accordingly.

Reply:

Applications for pardon are considered on an individual basis based on the application made by the applicant or his/her legal representative. No application for pardon was received in respect of Mr Zuma’s conviction for the Minister’s consideration and recommendation.

My Department plays a supporting role in receiving pardon applications and processing the documents for the consideration of the President. The preparatory steps to be taken by the Minister of Justice and Correctional Services and the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development fall within the auxiliary powers of the President in the decision-making process as per the case of Minister for Justice and Constitutional Development v Chonco and Others 2010 (2) BCLR 140 (CCT).

With regard to pardons in general, the President’s power to grant pardon is derived from section 84(2)(j) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 (the Constitution). The decision whether or not to grant pardon to an applicant rests solely with the President. Though there is no right to be pardoned, the function conferred on the President to make a decision entails a corresponding right to have a pardon application considered and decided upon rationally, in good faith, in accordance with the principle of legality, diligently and without delay. That decision and the constitutional responsibility for that decision, rests solely with the President as Head of State.

Reply:

1. On 18 December 2020 the Supreme Court of Appeal made the following orders in the matter of President of the RSA and Another v Women’s Legal Centre Trust and Others 612/19) [2020] ZASCA 177; [2021] 1 All SA 802 (SCA); 2021 (2) SA 381:

1.1 The Marriage Act 25 of 1961 (the Marriage Act) and the Divorce Act 70 of 1979 (the Divorce Act) are declared to be inconsistent with ss 9, 10, 28 and 34 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, in that they fail to recognise marriages solemnised in accordance with Sharia law (Muslim marriages) as valid marriages as long as these have not been registered as civil marriages. The declaration of constitutional invalidity was referred to the Constitutional Court for confirmation.

1.2 The declarations of invalidity were suspended for a period of 24 months to enable the President and Cabinet, together with Parliament to remedy the defects by either amending existing legislation, or passing new legislation within 24 months, in order to ensure the recognition of Muslim marriages as valid marriages for all purposes in South Africa and to regulate the consequences arising from such recognition.

2. Par 1.5 of the order of the Supreme Court of Appeal of 18 December 2020 makes it clear that the orders made by the Supreme Court of Appeal were not the final word on the recognition of Muslim marriages and their consequences. Proceedings would necessarily have to be brought at the Constitutional Court for the confirmation of the declarations of unconstitutionality made by the Supreme Court of Appeal.

3. On 5 August 2021 the matter of Women’s Legal Centre Trust v President of the Republic of South Africa and Others CCT 24/21 was enrolled at the Constitutional Court for argument. The Constitutional Court heard argument and adjourned the matter for judgment.

4. The Department of Justice and Constitutional Development (DOJCD) has consequently not failed to give effect to the judgment of the Supreme Court of Appeal on the matter of the recognition of Muslim marriages and their consequences. The final judgment in the matter is awaited as it will guide further development of legislation in this regard.

5. The six-month timeframe the Honourable Mr Hendricks refers to which he notes the DOJCD had to comply with to attend to the recognition of Muslim marriages and their consequences has consequently also not yet commenced but will only commence once the Constitutional Court has ruled in the matter of Women’s Legal Centre Trust v President of the Republic of South Africa and Others CCT 24/21.

6. Marriage Laws are now the responsibility of the Minister of Home Affairs, and the necessary legislation will be introduced by that Minister.

Reply:

1. Prior to responding to the abovementioned question by Ms N.N. Chirwa, it is important to provide the definition of Backlog maintenance court cases in the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development.
2. Backlog maintenance court cases means all maintenance cases finalized after 90 days from the date of proper service of process. This definition was developed due to the fact that the Department is alive to the provisions of Section 6 of the Children’s Act 2005, which provides that all matters affecting children must be finalized speedily and any forms of delays must be avoided.
3. Given the provisions of Section 6 of the Children’s Act 2005, and with the view to finalize all maintenance cases speedily, the Department firstly developed a key performance indicator: Percentage of maintenance cases finalized within 90 days from the date of proper service of process. With this, the Department planned to finalize maintenance cases within 90 days from the date that the Respondent/ Defaulter was served with the Directive/ Subpoena informing him or her of the maintenance claim and further calling upon him/ her to make good the maintenance claim and also provided that the Maintenance Application complied with the requirements of a complete maintenance application such as that the application has clearly outlined the details of the Defaulter / Respondent, proof of birth of the child and identity documents of the Applicant. Thus any application which does not have the required and necessary information will not be processed as it will negatively affect the investigation process.
4. Whilst the Department had developed the said Key Performance Indicator, the Department experienced severe capacity constraints and as such resolved to introduce the implementation of the said Key Performance Indicators in identified maintenance courts also referred to as Maintenance Pilot Sites. To date, there are 241 Maintenance Courts which are implementing the said Key Performance Indicator. It is envisaged that the number of the Maintenance Pilot Sites would be increased as and when the Maintenance Courts are capacitated accordingly.
5. With the view to also track the maintenance backlog cases, the Department also developed the Key Performance Indicator: Percentage of Maintenance Backlog cases finalized. The said Key Performance Indicator has been introduced in the Branch Operational Plan of Court Service and this assist the Department to track backlog cases and prioritize them accordingly.
6. To date there are 2905 backlog cases (that is cases which were received in the 241 Maintenance Pilot Sites and which could not be finalized within 90 days from the date of proper service of process).
7. The above backlog cases were received between the periods 2008 to 2021. The reasons for the cases not being finalized within 90 days from the date of proper service of process were also analyzed and it was found that they could not be finalized due to the whereabouts of the Respondents/ Defaulters being unknown and as such they could not be served with the Subpoenas / Directives. It should further be noted that due to the nature of the maintenance processes, the non-service of the subpoenas and directive on the Defaulter means that the maintenance case will not be hearing ripe and as such cannot be finalized. Furthermore, the backlog was also occasioned by postponements as a result of incomplete investigation of the cases. Since the introduction of the Maintenance Defaulters Track and Trace System the courts have also experienced delays in obtaining information from the Information Storing Institutions such as Banks and CIPC.
8. The Department plans to deal with the backlog cases by training the Maintenance Officers and Maintenance Investigators on the utilization of civil remedies, forensic investigation and child forcedness. This will ensure that maintenance cases are prioritized.
9. The Department will also train the Maintenance Officers on the utilization of the Interim Maintenance Orders option pending the finalization of investigations.
10. The Department also plans to strengthen the Maintenance Defaulters Track and Trace System.
11. The Department will also fill some of the vacant Maintenance Officers’ vacant position progressively.

Reply:

1. All applications received by the Guardian’s Fund is captured on the Application Tracker System by each office. However, the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development’s Information Technology Systems are currently down, hence the inability to extract and provide such information at this stage.

2. Though various litigation cases are served on the Master annually, they are not necessarily lodged against the Master, as the Master is and have to be, in many instances, cited as an interested party due to the functions of the Master as prescribed in the various acts governing the Master. In most of those matters, no specific relief is necessarily sought against the Master. The tables below provide details of all litigation matters received in which the Master is cited according to the records kept:

1 April 2020 – 31 March 2021	Total
Unopposed summonses	74
Opposed summonses	6
Unopposed applications	574
Opposed applications	costs only opposed	22
	application opposed	6
Matters where no specific action was filed (withdrawn, incorrectly cited, etc.)	25
Annual Total	707

1 April 2021 – 30 June 2021	Total
Unopposed summonses	29
Unopposed applications	207
Opposed applications	costs only opposed	4
Matters where no specific action was filed (withdrawn, incorrectly cited etc.)	15
Quarter 1 Total	255

3. The only funds held by the Master, is that which have been deposited into the Guardian’s Fund in terms of the applicable laws.

Funds are received or accepted by the Master into the Guardian’s Fund for the benefit of a specific beneficiary. The Master opens an account in the name of the person to whom the money belongs to or the estate of which the money forms part of. Only that beneficiary may claim the funds due to him/her once it becomes claimable. The Master will administer the funds, free of charge, for the minor until he/she turns major (now 18 years of age) or reach the age as indicated in the Will/Testament.

Deceased Estate funds in the Guardian’s Fund becomes claimable by beneficiaries as soon as they reach the age of majority, or such other date as may be determined by a Will/Testament. Funds which earn interest will still bear interest for a period of five (5) years after it became claimable. Claimable funds are also advertised in the Government Gazette for three (3) consecutive years in September each year (Section 91). These adverts must also be displayed at all Magistrate Courts. The advertisement is further also placed on the Master’s Website

Whilst the funds are not yet claimable by the beneficiary, the guardian of a minor/persons incapable of managing their own affairs can claim maintenance/allowance from the Guardian’s Fund. The Master is entitled to pay for maintenance, such as school and university fees, clothes, medical fees, boarding and lodging and any other needs that can be fully motivated. Payments can be made directly to the service provider such as schools, universities, bookshops, etc.

In terms of Section 92 of the Administration of Estates Act, if funds are not claimed for thirty (30) years after it became claimable, it is forfeited to the State and are paid over to the Commissioner of Revenue. All funds which have not yet been claimed prior to thirty (30) years are still claimable by the relevant beneficiaries.

As the Master does not have control over who decides to claim the funds, maintenance etc. and how much they want to claim – it is not possible to indicate a quantified amount which should have been distributed to families or an individual, but is still with the Master. As from the above explanation, it is clear that all funds in the Guardian’s Fund, can be applied for by the beneficiary, guardian, etc. at any stage, from the date it is deposited, up to 30 years after it became claimable.

4. Yes, action has been taken against relevant personnel. Below are the relevant details:

NATURE	NUMBER	STATUS	OUTCOME OF THE SANCTIONS
Bribery	3	2 Finalised	2 Final Warning
		1 Not Finalised	1 Pending
Corruption	7	5 Finalised 2 Not Finalised	1 Suspension
			1 Verbal Warning
			1 Written Warning
			2 Dismissal
			2 Pending
Fraud	3	1 Finalised	1 Withdrawal
		2 Not Finalised	2 Pending
Insubordination	3	1 Finalised	1 Final Warning
		2 Not Finalised	2 Pending
Intimidation	1	Not Finalised	1 Pending
Negligence	3	1 Finalised	1 Dismissal
		2 Not Finalised	2 Pending
Unauthorised Absence	1	Finalised	1 Written Warning
Unethical Behaviour	2	Not Finalised	2 Pending
Maladministration (Busasa)	1	Not Finalised	Pending
Non-Disclosure (Busasa)	1	Not Finalised	Pending
Total	25	11 Finalised 14 Not Finalised	14 Pending 1 Withdrawal 2 Written Warning 1 Verbal Warning 3 Final Warning 3 Dismissal 1 Suspension

5. A new administration and financial system for the Guardian’s Fund was developed together with Information Systems Management.

The tender process has been done in the 2020/21 financial year, and it is envisaged that development of this system will be finalized and rolled-out in the 2022/23 financial year. The new system will be a full financial system which will ensure accurate financial statements and management. The move to a fully financial system will guarantee accurate records and reports while simplifying processes of the Master’s office in Guardian’s Fund matters.

Reply:

1. In terms of sections 29 and 31 of the Administration of Estates Act 66 of 1965, all claims against Deceased Estates must be lodged with the appointed executor, and not the Master.

In terms of sections 32 and 33 of the Act, the Executor can dispute or accept these claims against the estate and any party aggrieved by such decision of the executor can either proceed to proof his/her claim in court. Alternatively, the claimant may wait until the executor lodge the Liquidation and Distribution Account and then formally, in terms of section 35(7) of the Act, object to the Liquidation and Distribution account to include his/her claim.

It is the duty of the executor to ensure that all heirs and creditors specified in the approved Liquidation and Distribution account are paid accordingly.

The Master does not receive or decide on the validity of claims against Deceased Estates and does not keep record of such information. This information can be obtained from the lodged Liquidation and Distribution Account in each estate above the value of R250 000.

 

2. In terms of Section 29 of the Administration of Estates Act 66 of 1965, every executor shall, as soon as may be after letters of executorship have been granted, cause a notice to be published in the Gazette and in one or more newspapers circulating in the district in which the deceased ordinarily resided at the time of his death and, if at any time within the period of twelve months immediately preceding the date of his death he so resided in any other district, also in one or more newspapers circulating in that other district, or if he was not ordinarily so resident in any district in the Republic, in one or more newspapers circulating in a district where the deceased owned property, calling upon all persons having claims against his estate to lodge such claims with the executor within such period (not being less than thirty days or more than three months) from the date of the latest publication of the notice as may be specified therein.

In terms of section 32, if an executor disputes any claim against the estate, he may by notice in writing:

a) Require the claimant to lodge, in support of his claim, within a period specified in the notice, an affidavit setting forth such details of the claim as the executor may indicate in the notice; and

b) With the consent of the Master, require the claimant or any other person who may in the opinion of the Master be able to give material information in connection with the claim, to appear before the Master or any Magistrate or Master nominated by the Master, material information in connection with the claim, to appear before the Master or any Magistrate or Master nominated by the Master, at a place and time stated in the notice, to be examined under oath in connection with the claim.

Reply:

a) Imprisoned

REGIONS (In prison Schedule 08 offenders)	Imprisoned 2016/17	Imprisoned 2017/18	Imprisoned 2018/19	Imprisoned 2019/20	Imprisoned 2020/2	Grand Total
RC EASTERN CAPE	18 955	18 588	17 663	17 074	14 090	22 821
RC GAUTENG	32 978	32 373	31 600	29 944	23 309	41 462
RC KWAZULU-NATAL	26 663	26 038	25 094	23 563	18 894	32 366
RC LIMPOPO MPUMALANGA & NW	21 963	21 708	21 856	21 518	17 551	27 007
RC NORTHERN CAPE & FREE STATE	19 032	19 078	18 934	17 971	14 440	22 465
RC WESTERN CAPE	25 537	24 885	24 318	23 434	17 827	36 179
Grand Total	145 128	142 670	139 465	133 504	106 111	182 300

(b) Released

REGIONS (Released Sch 08 Offenders)	FY 2016/17	FY 2017/18	FY 2018/19	FY 2019/20	FY 2020/21	Grand Total
RC EASTERN CAPE	4 799	4 710	4 515	5 112	3 685	22 821
RC GAUTENG	8 242	7 917	8 294	10 209	6 800	41 462
RC KWAZULU-NATAL	6 643	6 351	6 249	7 394	5 729	32 366
RC LIMPOPO MPUMALANGA & N.W.	5 263	4 817	4 999	6 728	5 200	27 007
RC NORTHERN CAPE & FREE STATE	4 328	4 211	4 272	5 320	4 334	22 465
RC WESTERN CAPE	7 729	7 066	6 848	9 163	5 373	36 179
Grand Total ALL types of releases	37 004	35 072	35 177	43 926	31 121	182 300
Number of convicted Schedule 8 not added to the National Forensic DNA Data base (Released on parole without DNA) PQ 1660 - NW1806E	22 325	18 470	19 556	20 772	15 752	96,875
Number of other release types other than parole release E.g. Sentence Expiry Date (SED)	14 679	16 602	15 621	23 154	15 369	85 425
Grand Total ALL types of releases	37 004	35 072	35 177	43 926	31 121	182 300

END

Reply:

a) As at 11 May 2021 a total of 12 542 persons between the age of 16 and 25 were incarcerated in Correctional services facilities. The breakdown per region is as follows:

Total Number Of Persons Between The Age Of 16 And 25 Incarcerated In Correctional Services Facilities
Region	Age group 16 to 25 years incarcerated
Eastern Cape	2 238
Gauteng	1 226
KwaZulu-Natal	1 763
Limpopo, Mpumalanga & North West	1 776
Northern Cape & Free State	2 219
Western Cape	3 320
Grand Total	12 542

(b)(i) Murder

Number of the specified persons between the age of 16 and 25 incarcerated for murder
Region	Murder
Eastern Cape	440
Gauteng	218
KwaZulu-Natal	402
Limpopo, Mpumalanga & North West	347
Northern Cape & Free State	430
Western Cape	616
Total	2 453

(b)(ii) Grievous Bodily Harm (GBH)

Number of the specified persons between the age of 16 and 25 incarcerated for grievous bodily harm
Region	Grievous Bodily Harm
Eastern Cape	153
Gauteng	58
Kwazulu-Natal	61
Limpopo, Mpumalanga & North West	100
Northern Cape & Free State	130
Western Cape	193
Total	695

END.

Reply:

It should be noted that both offenders are serving sentences of life imprisonment. They have benefitted from Phaahla judgment handed down by the Constitutional Court on
03 May 2019, since they were sentenced after 01 October 2004 for offences committed before 01 October 2004.

The mentioned offenders have been assessed for placement by the Case Management Committee and Correctional Supervision and Parole Board, their profiles are yet to be considered by the National Council of Correctional Services (NCCS) before being forwarded to the Minister for a decision.

The possible placement of offenders serving life sentences (lifers) are considered by the Minister in line with section 78 of the Correctional Services Act 111 of 1998. Therefore, the Minister will consider each case on its merit and will approve or disapprove parole placement once he is satisfied that offenders are indeed rehabilitated based on the information presented.

END

Reply:

Yes, the Office of the State Attorney in Cape Town has been instructed by the Department of Public Works and Infrastructure, through the Legal Services’ Office in Cape Town, to initiate eviction proceedings as the contractor was appointed to renovate the property in question needed for identified purpose and following complaints from nearby property owners as well as residents.

a) Instructions were received on 19 February 2018, and subsequently thereto as per the client’s instructions, a notice to vacate the premises was served on the unlawful occupants.

b) When the unlawful occupants refused to vacate the property, the State Attorney appointed Counsel to draft necessary papers to move the application for eviction.

c) At this stage, it is not clear when the application for eviction will be moved and all that we can say is that such depends on when the State Attorney will be receiving full and proper instruction from the client department as outlined in the advice of the legal team following consultation with the client, namely: the full and updated details of the people unlawfully occupying the property that they are sought to be evicted from, alternative accommodation and any other special circumstances of the occupants that a court might require explanation on, and lastly the attitude of the municipality regarding alternative accommodation.