Questions & Replies: Justice & Constitutional Development
2012-06-30
THIS FILE CAN CONTAIN UP TO 25 REPLIES.
SEARCH ON THE TOPIC/KEYWORD YOU ARE LOOKING FOR BY SELECTING CTRL + F ON YOUR KEYBOARD
Reply received: May 2012
PARLIAMENTARY QUESTION NO.: 789
DATE OF QUESTION: 16 MARCH 2012
789. Dr L L Bosman (DA) to ask the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development:
Whether any officials from (a) his department and (b) any entities reporting to him were on an official visit to Bloemfontein in (i) December 2011 and (ii) January 2012; if so, in each case, what (aa) is the (aaa) name and (bbb) position of the specified official, (bb) was the (aaa) purpose and (bbb) date of such visit and (cc) was the cost of (aaa) transport, (bbb) accommodation and (ccc) other expenses?
NW960E
REPLY:-I wish to inform the Honourable member that Government officials, ranging from junior officials up to Directors-General and Political Principals, are often required to travel around the country to communicate government programmes to various communities and stakeholders with the aim of working together with these stakeholders to improve service delivery, amongst other things. All these trips are approved by the next line management except for Directors-General who exercise a calculated discretion to perform their duties, which require formal government engagement to requisition such trips around the country. The costs of such trips are outlined in the department's annual report following intensive internal and external audit processes. The figures for December 2011 and January 2012 are still in the process of being verified given that the current financial year end is 31st March 2012. These figures will appear in the annual reports covering the period, 1st April 2011 to 31st March 2012 and these documents will be made public.
Reply received: May 2012
PARLIAMENTARY QUESTION NO.: 759
DATE OF QUESTION: 16 MARCH 2012
759. Ms M Smuts (DA) to ask the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development:
How does he envisage judicial independence should be shaped by the social, political and economic realities in South Africa, as referred to in the discussion document (details furnished)?
NW927E
Details referred to: Paragraph 3.3.11 of the Discussion Document on the Transformation of the Judicial System
REPLY:- I wish to inform the Honourable Member that the transformation of the judicial system, including the construction of the evolving concepts of separation of powers and the independence of the judiciary which are the bedrock of our Constitution, must have regard to the history of centuries of inequality and deprivation brought about by colonialism and apartheid. It is therefore important that the transformation project sought to be implemented through the Discussion Document, must redress the legacy of inequality in order for all South Africans to enjoy equal benefit and protection of the law. Similarly the courts, when interpreting the Bill of Rights in the Constitution, continue to have regard to the realities of the South African society. For example, in the Certification Judgment, where the Constitutional Courts observed that: "[t]here is no universal model of separation of powers, and in democratic systems of government in which checks and balances result in the imposition of restraints by one branch of government upon another, there is no separation that is absolute." I have no doubt that over time our courts will develop a distinctively South African model of separation of powers, one that fits the particular system of government provided for in the Constitution and that reflects a delicate balancing, informed both by South Africa's history and its new dispensation, between the need, on the one hand, to control government by separating powers and enforcing checks and balances, and, on the other, to avoid diffusing power so completely that the government is unable to take timely measures in the public interest. ..." (At paragraphs 74) In De Lange v Smuts, the Ackerman J, describing the separation of powers in the context of the magistracy in our South African situation had this to say: "The separation between the executive and the judiciary is not total in South Africa. We need look no further than the magistracy to see the striking illustration of an overlap. Besides their judicial work, magistrates attend to a host of administrative tasks that fall within the exercise of executive power, moving readily and frequently from the bench to the bureaucracy and back". (At paragraph 124) The above shows that all of us, including the courts cannot be ignorant to the social and political realities on the ground which this Document seeks to address in our quest to establish a non-racial, non-sexist and prosperous society envisaged by the Constitution. I wish to thank the Honourable Member for highlighting some of the points raised in the Discussion Document. I wish to call once more, for an open debate of the principles contained in the Document as we approach the deadline of the end of April 2012 by which views and comments on the Document must have been submitted.Reply received: May 2012
PARLIAMENTARY QUESTION NO.: 756
DATE OF QUESTION: 16 MARCH 2012
756. Ms M Smuts (DA) to ask the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development:
With reference to the discussion document (details furnished), which court decisions are perceived not to fully advance the transformative purpose of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996?
NW924E
Details referred to: The statement made in paragraph 3.3.4 of the Discussion Document on the Transformation of the Judicial System
REPLY:- As the Honourable Member is aware, a consultative process is underway that includes, inter alia, the assessment of the impact of the decisions of the Supreme Court of Appeal and the Constitutional Court on the South African law and jurisprudence. An open tender invitation has been published for interested research institution(s). It is therefore important that we await the outcome of the said assessment.Reply received: April 2012
PARLIAMENTARY QUESTION NO.: 763
DATE OF QUESTION: 16 MARCH 2012
763. Ms M Smuts (DA) to ask the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development:
(1) Whether the Office of the State Attorney approached senior counsel from the Johannesburg Bar to provide a legal opinion on the merits of a murder charge against a certain person (name furnished); if so,
(2) whether he has been informed of the instruction for the legal opinion; if not, what is the position in this regard; if so, what are the relevant details;
(3) whether the outcome of this opinion is of the view that there was a prima facie case against the said person; if not, why not; if so, what are the reasons why the Gauteng South Director of Public Prosecutions (a)(i) withdrew or (ii) suspended the charges and (b) held an inquest;
(4) (a) who gave the instruction to suspend or withdraw the charges and (b)(i) why and (ii) on what grounds were these charges suspended or withdrawn?
NW931E
Name of person referred to: Lt-General Richard Mdluli
REPLY:-I wish to inform the Honourable Member that I have been advised that the Office of the State Attorney did not instruct Counsel and I was not informed of the instruction. It is not a practice in the National Prosecuting Authority for DPPs to discuss prosecutorial decisions with me and there is no obligation for them to do so. I have not had sight of the legal opinion and am therefore not in a position to comment on it. I am informed that the DPP gave the instruction to withdraw the charges in order to consider the final outcome of the judicial inquest. I am also informed that various factors have been considered based on the representations and facts as well as evidence at hand.
Reply received: April 2012
Question 702 (NW864E)
Mr D J Maynier (DA) to ask the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development:
Whether the National Conventional Arms Control Committee (NCACC) Inspectorate has conducted any investigations since 20 February 2003 to ensure that the trade in conventional arms is conducted in compliance with the National Conventional Arms Control Act, Act 41 of 2002, with regard to (a) Libya, (b) Iran, (c) Syria, (d) Madagascar, (e) North Korea, (f) Zimbabwe; if not, why not, in each specified case; if so, what are the relevant details, in each specified case?
Written Reply
The National Conventional Arms Control Committee (NCACC) was established during 1995 while the Inspectorate was established in terms of the National Conventional Arms Control Act, Act 41 of 2002, (NCAC Act). The Inspectorate was established in 2006 and became operational on 1 September 2007. No investigations were therefore conducted by the Inspectorate since 20 February 2003 until the commencement of the functioning of the Inspectorate in 2007.
No investigations were conducted since 1 September 2007 by the Inspectorate in relation to Libya, Syria, Madagascar and Zimbabwe as investigations are initiated based on NCACC instructions, complaints lodged with the Inspectorate or contraventions of the NCAC Act found by the Inspectorate during investigations or audits. No instructions, complaints or contraventions with regard to the above countries were received / found during audits or inspections conducted. In conducting audits on the Armaments Related Industry, all transactions concluded by such company with foreign entities in foreign countries are audited in terms of its compliance with the provisions of the NCAC Act. Any transgressions found will duly be reported to the NCACC and criminal investigations initiated.
The following investigations were conducted on Iran and North Korea:
a. Iran: A compliant was received from members of the Wassenaar Arrangement with regard to Icarus Marine (Pty) Ltd and its possible involvement in the conveyance of a boat, Bladerunner 51, to Iran. The matter has been investigated and concluded. The Bladerunner 51 is not controlled under the NCAC Act and its accompanying regulations. b. North Korea: During November 2009 a Note Verbal was received relating to information on a shipment of North Korean military equipment which was to be transhipped via South Africa to the Republic ofCongo in breach of a United Nations sanction. The Inspectorate caused the containers to be searched and seized the controlled goods. The equipment has been forfeited to the Government of South Africa and the matter has been closed.Reply received: May 2012
PARLIAMENTARY QUESTION NO.: 664
DATE OF QUESTION: 16 MARCH 2012
664. Ms L H Adams (Cope) to ask the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development:
(1) How many of the 93 cases of financial irregularities in terms of the Public Service Commission Report of 2009-2010 were reported to the (a) National Prosecuting Authority and (b) SA Police Service for further criminal action;
(2) whether all the money that was stolen by the employees who were implicated in the 93 cases has been retrieved; if not, (a) why not and (b) what amount is still outstanding; if so, what are the relevant details;
(3) whether his department has conducted any disciplinary action against the employees who had been implicated in the specified financial irregularities; if not, why not; if so, what is the current status of these employees?
NW823E
REPLY:-(1)(a) I wish to inform the Honourable Member that my Department does not report cases directly to the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA). The Department reports matters for criminal investigation to the South African Police Service (SAPS) and then depending on the outcome of the investigation, matters may be referred to the NPA for prosecution by the Police.
(1)(b) Out of the 93 cases, 56 cases were reported to the SAPS of which in one instance, SAPS declined to open a docket due to lack of evidence. Subsection 34(1) of the Prevention and Combating of Corrupt Activities Act, 2004, prescribes the reporting of offences of theft, fraud, extortion, forgery or uttering of a forged document involving amounts of R100 000.00 or more to the South African Police Service. Some cases did not warrant reporting to the South African Police Service because they were not serious offences and therefore were dealt with through internal processes.
(2) It should be mentioned that not all the money lost in the 93 cases relates to theft. The table below contains a breakdown of all financial misconduct cases for year 2009/10 and the nature there-of.
| FINANCIAL MISCONDUCT 2009/2010 - 93 CASES | |
| NATURE OF MISCONDUCT | NUMBER OF CASES PER NATURE |
| ABUSE OF STATE PROPERTY | 9 |
| CORRUPTION | 3 |
| DAMAGE TO STATE PROPERTY | 3 |
| FRAUD | 23 |
| MISMANAGEMENT OF FUNDS | 1 |
| LOSS OF STATE MONEY | 15 |
| NEGLIGENCE | 9 |
| THEFT | 30 |
| TOTAL | 93 |
(2)(a)(b) No, not all the money has been recovered. From a total ofR 2,211,781.61, a sum of R 401,475.16 has been recovered, R 359,249.71 has been written off, and R 1,451,056.74 is outstanding. The reasons for all the money not having been recovered could be explained as follows:
§ approximately thirty-five percent of the cases of 2009/10 are still pending;
§ approximately seventeen percent has been recovered;
§ approximately eighteen percent reflects that no loss had been incurred;
§ approximately fifteen percent fluctuates between extreme sentencing such as culpable homicide and unable to prosecute; and
§ approximately fifteen percent is still awaiting finalisation of payment arrangements.
The progress on cases has been tabled below:
| FINANCIAL MISCONDUCT 2009/2010 - 93 CASES | ||||
| NATURE OF MISCONDUCT | Amount to be Recovered | Amount Recovered | Amount Written Off | BALANCE |
| ABUSE OF STATE PROPERTY | R 104,253.34 | R 0.00 | R 47,968.00 | R 56,285.34 |
| CORRUPTION | R 0.00 | R 0.00 | R 0.00 | R 0.00 |
| DAMAGE TO STATE PROPERTY | R 167,821.30 | R 0.00 | R 0.00 | R 167,821.30 |
| FRAUD | R 549,964.40 | R 72,295.94 | R 294,868.51 | R 182,799.95 |
| MISMANAGEMENT OF FUNDS | R 0.00 | R 0.00 | R 0.00 | R 0.00 |
| LOSS OF STATE MONEY | R 379,349.62 | R 179,562.42 | R 0.00 | R 199,787.20 |
| NEGLIGENCE | R 516,257.25 | R 71,150.00 | R 0.00 | R 445,107.25 |
| THEFT | R 494,135.70 | R 78,466.80 | R 16,413.20 | R 399,255.70 |
| TOTAL | R 2,211,781.61 | R 401,475.16 | R 359,249.71 | R 1,451,056.74 |
(3) Ninety-three (93) disciplinary cases were opened against all officials involved. The table below contains a detailed exposition on the status of disciplinary matters in respect of the 93 cases.
| FINANCIAL MISCONDUCT 2009/2010 - 93 CASES | ||||||||
| OUTCOME OF MISCONDUCT - EMPLOYEE/LABOUR RELATIONS | ||||||||
| NATURE OF MISCONDUCT | ACQUITAL | DEMOTION | DISMISSAL | RESIGNATION | SUSPENDED | WRITTEN WARNING | FINAL WARNING | WITH-DRAWN |
| ABUSE OF STATE PROPERTY | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 0 |
| CORRUPTION | 1 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| DAMAGE TO STATE PROPERTY | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 0 |
| FRAUD | 5 | 2 | 5 | 6 | 1 | 0 | 4 | 0 |
| MISMANAGEMENT OF FUNDS | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| LOSS OF STATE MONEY | 3 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 3 | 5 | 1 |
| NEGLIGENCE | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 |
| THEFT | 1 | 0 | 13 | 7 | 3 | 0 | 4 | 2 |
| TOTAL | 11 | 2 | 21 | 18 | 9 | 7 | 19 | 6 |
Reply received: April 2012
PARLIAMENTARY QUESTION NO.: 619
DATE OF QUESTION: 09 MARCH 2012
619. Ms M Smuts (DA) to ask the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development:
(1) Whether, in light of the time it would take a certain person (name furnished) to serve on the task team that has been established by a certain political organisation (name furnished) to probe the disruption of a memorial lecture address by the President of the Republic, the said person was required to obtain permission before he agreed to serve on the task team; if so, what are the relevant details; if not, how did he assess the estimated impact of this private work on the said person's official duties;
(2) whether the said person has discussed his position on the task team with him; if not, what is the position in this regard; if so, what are the relevant details;
(3) whether he granted the said person permission to serve on the task team; if not, (a) why not and (b) why is the said person serving on the task team; if so,
(4) whether, given the workload of the Justice Department in the Western Cape, all of a certain person's (name furnished) obligations in respect of the task team were required to be met outside of his normal working hours; if not, (a) why not and (b) how many hours did the specified obligations take up during the said person's working day; if so, how did he monitor this;
(5) whether (a) he and (b) the said person took any steps to ensure that he fulfils all his departmental responsibilities and obligations while serving on the task team; if not, why not, in each case; if so, what are the relevant details in each case?
NW785E
Name of person referred to: Adv Hishaam Mohamed REPLY:- (1) The Public Service Act 1994 as amended provides in Section 30 that :"(1) No employee shall perform or engage himself or herself to perform remunerative work outside his or her employment in the relevant department, except with the written permission of the executive authority of the department. (2) For the purposes of subsection (1) the executive authority shall at least take into account whether or not the outside work could reasonably be expected to interfere with or impede the effective or efficient performance of the employee's functions in the department or constitute a contravention of the code of conduct contemplated in section 41 (1) (b) (v). (3) (a) The executive authority shall decide whether or not to grant permission, contemplated in subsection (1), within 30 days after the receipt of the request from the employee in question. (b) If the executive authority fails to make a decision within the 30 day period, it would be deemed that such permission was given. "
I am advised that the ANC in the Western Cape requested Adv Hishaam Mohamed in his private capacity to assist a task team that was formed to investigate the disruption of a memorial lecture addressed by the President of the ANC on 23 February 2012 in Cape Town.
I am also advised that Adv Hishaam Mohamed is not obliged to obtain permission from his employer or myself in this instance as required by the Public Service Act 1994 as outlined above for the following reasons:
(a) the task that he was requested to assist with is to be performed on a voluntary basis for which he will not receive any form of remuneration;
(b) the work and time spent in assisting the said task team is of a private nature and is to be conducted during his private time (i.e. after official work hours and weekends);
(c) The assistance required from him was of an administrative nature (i.e. drafting) and would not affect public policy or government work; and
(d) The task to be performed by him together with other task team members will be a shared-responsibility and for a short time period. It will therefore not affect his performance as a Public Service Manager in any way.
(2) For the reasons outlined in paragraph 1 above, there was no reason for Adv Hishaam Mohamed to discuss this matter with me.
(3) The situation in this instance does not arise where I have to grant Adv Hishaam Mohamed permission to serve on a task team of a political party as set out in paragraph 1 above.
(4) As indicated in paragraph 1 above, the work required will be performed after official working hours and over weekends and will not affect his work obligations. Adv Hishaam Mohamed's performance track record is exemplary in that the Western Cape, and under his leadership, has achieved a No Audit Qualification from the Auditor-General for many years. His work ethic and performance is beyond doubt, which has been acknowledged by the community as exemplary over the last 15 years.
(5) I, through the Director-General, have the necessary standard management measures in place that ensure that all managers fulfill their management responsibilities and obligations. To this effect, all Senior Managers of the Department are required to attend executive meetings where they have to report on their performance against set targets as outlined in a Performance Agreement. Adv Hishaam Mohamed's energies and management team in the Western Cape have often exceeded their set targets outlined in their Performance Agreements.
Reply received: March 2012
QUESTION 436 02 March 2012
436. Ms. A M Dreyer (DA) to ask the Minister of Public Works:
(1) Whether the informal settlement of Msholozi Village (details furnished) is located on property owned by his department; if not, what is the position in this regard; if so, what are the relevant details;
(2) (a) how many persons have occupied the land and (b) what services are currently rendered to the residents occupying the land;
(3) what is the status of the agreement between his department and theMbombela Municipality relating to residential developments planned for the informal settlement;
(4) whether an eviction order has been granted; if not, what is the position in this regard; if so, what steps were taken to (a) abide with the order and (b) relocate the occupants? NW582E
REPLY
1. a. Yes, the property is owned by the Department of Public Works).
b. The property is portion 2 of farm Dingwell 276 JT and measures 244.2896 hectors.
2. a. The land is occupied by approximately 3 000 people who live in shacks and some in brick built structures.
b. No services are currently rendered to the people occupying the land.
3. There is no agreement between the Department and MbombelaMunicipality; however the Municipality once indicated that they have interest in establishing a township in the area. Formal documentation requesting the transfer of the property to the said Municipality is still awaited.
4. a. The National Department of Public Works never instituted any legal action against the community.
b. The Department consented to the eviction of the occupants by theMbombela Municipality. The Department is still awaiting a formal documentation from the Mbombela Municipality requesting the transfer of the property in question.
Reply received: March 2012
PARLIAMENTARY QUESTION NO.: 544
DATE OF QUESTION: 09 MARCH 2012
544. Mr J Selfe (DA) to ask the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development:
What (a) are the reasons for the delay in Cabinet approving the draft Torture Bill and (b) challenges are being experienced with the Bill?
NW702E
REPLY:-(a) The Member is correct to mention that the draft bill on the Prevention and Combating of Torture is currently before the Cabinet. Therefore, I am not at liberty to divulge at this point the nature of the proceedings at the Cabinet, save to mention that an announcement will be made as soon as the Cabinet completes its deliberations on the Bill.
Reply received: March 2012
PARLIAMENTARY QUESTION NO.: 489
DATE OF QUESTION: 01 MARCH 2012
489. Mr I O Davidson (DA) to ask the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development:
Whether he met with the internal audit committee in the (a) 2010-11 and (b) 2011-12 financial years; if not, why not; if so, (i) on which dates did they meet and (ii) what are the further relevant details?
NW638E
REPLY:-I wish to inform the Honourable Member that no, I have not met with the Departmental Audit Committee during 2010-11 nor during 2011-12. The Audit Committee governance framework requires the Department's Audit Committee to assist the Accounting Officer through advising, reviewing and providing oversight on the Department's finances, Performance, Governance, Controls and Risk Management processes.
The Audit Committee meets regularly with the Accounting Officer and her management team. I am also briefed continuously on the Audit matters and outcomes pertaining to the Department.
Although there had been challenges in the past regarding the Departmental audit outcomes, the Audit Committee, in their engagement with the Accounting Officer, had not identified any matters which they have felt the Accounting Officer could not address adequately, which as a result would have required meetings to be set up to solicit my intervention.
Reply received: March 2012
PARLIAMENTARY QUESTION NO.: 247
DATE OF QUESTION: 16 FEBRUARY 2012
247. Mrs M Wenger (DA) to ask the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development:
(1) Whether, with reference to his replies to question 1406 on 25 July 2011 and question 3228 on 8 November 2011, the further investigations have now been completed; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details;
(2) whether the clarification of the legal position in relation to sections 24F and 24G of the National Environmental Management Act, Act 107 of 1998, have been obtained; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details;
(3) whether the Director of Public Prosecutions intends pursuing a criminal prosecution against the directors of Coal of Africa Limited (CoAL) for the various alleged transgressions in terms of the National Water Act, Act 36 of 1998, and the National Environmental Management Act, Act 107 of 1998; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details?
NW268E
REPLY:-I wish to inform the Honourable Member that I have been informed as follows:
(1) No, the further investigations have not been completed yet. The Director of Public Prosecutions of the North Gauteng office received the docket back from the investigating officer at the end of January 2012. In order to conclude the investigation, the following issues are being followed up on:- (a) the relationships between the various legal entities involved in the alleged mining irregularities, and (b) the incorporation documentation from the relevant authorities. These investigations can be concluded within a period of one (1) month. The issues involved in this matter are of quite a technical nature which explains the length of time the investigation is taking.
(2) The final consideration of the need for clarification of the legal position in relation to section 24F and 24G of NEMA will take place after the investigations are finalised, as set out above.
(3) The Director of Public Prosecutions will consider all the relevant factors and available evidence upon the finalisation of the investigation and will make a decision on whether to prosecute or not at that stage.
Reply received: March 2012
PARLIAMENTARY QUESTION NO.: 220
DATE OF QUESTION: 17 FEBRUARY 2012
220. Mrs J F Terblanche (DA) to ask the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development:
Whether any person has been convicted of a crime against a child since 2006; if so, (a) how many persons were convicted, (b) on what charges and (c) what were the length of their sentences and (d) what are their names?
NW241E
REPLY:- I wish to request the Member to reformulate the question to make it a bit clearer. In its current form it is vague in that 'a crime against a child' can range from assault, through theft to murder. It then makes it difficult for anyone to provide names of every convicted person since 2006.Reply received: March 2012
PARLIAMENTARY QUESTION NO.: 154
DATE OF QUESTION: 17 FEBRUARY 2012
154. Mr J Selfe (DA) to ask the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development:
Whether his department (a) investigates all allegations of torture and (b) prosecutes all perpetrators that have been found guilty in terms of the UN High Commission for Human Rights' Optional Protocol of the Convention against Torture (OPCAT); if not, why not, in each case; if so, what are the relevant details in each case?
NW170E
REPLY:-(a) I wish to inform the Honourable Member that no, my Department is not an investigative body. All allegations of criminal conduct must be investigated by the South African Police Service. The National Prosecuting Authority's (NPA's) role is to give guidance to such investigations and to make a decision on whether or not to prosecute in respect of each finalised investigation. Although South Africa has ratified the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment, it has not yet passed domestic legislation to incorporate the relevant provisions of the Convention into our law, which will, among others, criminalise all acts of torture as contemplated by the Convention. Draft legislation to give effect to the Convention is, however, scheduled to be submitted to Parliament shortly.
(b) Consequently torture may only be investigated within the territory of South Africa as one of the species of the common law crimes of assault, attempted murder or even murder or as a crime against humanity. However, as regards crimes against humanity it must be established that the torture took place during the course of a widespread or systematic attack on a civilian population. Extraterritorial torture may only be investigated as a crime against humanity and then only if the jurisdictional facts set out in section 4(3) of the Implementation of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, 2002 (Act 27 of 2002), have been satisfied.
Charges of assault will be investigated by the local SAPS detective branches and referred to the local prosecutors for decision. In respect of assaults perpetrated by members of SAPS and Correctional Services, these cases will be referred to the relevant Directors of Prosecutions for their offices to make relevant decisions.
Reply received: March 2012
PARLIAMENTARY QUESTION NO.: 130
DATE OF QUESTION: 16 FEBRUARY 2012
130. Mr G B D Mc Intosh (Cope) to ask the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development:
(1) Why was a certain person (name furnished) (a) granted bail after he was charged for murder and alleged murder, without consulting the investigating officer or prosecutor and (b) permitted to travel to Australia for vacation;
(2) whether he intends to investigate the procedures that were followed underwhich the said person was granted bail; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details?
NW139E
Details: City businessman, Johannes Boshoff
(in the case of Abel Matlhare and Thato Bvuma)
REPLY:-(1) I wish to inform the Honourable Member that the prosecutor on this case reported that the magistrate did not afford him the opportunity to oppose bail, an assertion also corroborated by the investigating officer.
(2) This matter is currently under investigation. The chief prosecutor referred the matter to the Acting Chief Magistrate at the Pretoria North Magistrate's Court and is awaiting advice from her office. According to the court records, the bail proceedings were mechanically recorded. The chief prosecutor subsequently requested the recordings from the magistrate so that he can have full insight into what transpired during the bail hearing.
Reply received: March 2012
PARLIAMENTARY QUESTION NO.: 100
DATE OF QUESTION: 09 FEBRUARY 2012
100. Mr G R Morgan (DA) to ask the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development:
(1) Whether, with reference to his reply to question 1057 on 4 July 2011, the National Prosecuting Authority has concluded its review of the report; if not, what are the reasons for the delay; if so, what are the relevant details;
(2) (a) how have the delays been justified in light of the seriousness of the matter at hand and (b) when does he expect the report to be finalised;
(3) whether he will furnish Mr G R Morgan with a copy of the report upon its completion; if not, why not?
NW109E
REPLY:-(1) I wish to inform the Honourable Member that I have been advised that the prosecutor has not concluded the review of the documents and the dockets in relation to both INCHANGA CAS 32/06/2011 and INCHANGA CAS 59/02/2008.
The reasons for the delay are that a box of documents in relation to INCHANGA 32/06/2011 had gone missing and had to be reconstructed by the Department of Labour and furnished to the prosecutor before a decision in respect of INCHANGA 32/06/2011 could be finalised. The Department of Labour undertook to provide the prosecutor with the additional documents, statements and exhibits.
The said documents were received by Adv Naicker, DPP KZN from Col Zondi of the Organised Crime Unit, who is the investigating officer in INCHANGA CAS 32/06/2011 and INCHANGA CAS 59/02/2008, on 9 January 2012.
The documents are voluminous and comprise of three boxes of documents, statements and exhibits that require consideration. The process of sctrutinising the said documents, statements and exhibits has not been completed due to the volume of the material and Adv Naicker's court and other work commitments. The matter is however being dealt with in an urgent manner.
(2)(a) The information contained in the boxes is crucial and must be considered in order to reach a just decision in this case. Furthermore, the issues to be decided on are complex and require that the prosecutor applies her mind to several legal considerations and research the issues before she is able to make a decision. INCHANGA CAS 59/02/2008 deals with possible culpable homicide charges against Assmang and employees.
The investigating officer has been requested to obtain the services of experts with whom Adv Naicker would like to consult in order to understand the technical aspects of certain statements that are contained in the INCHANGA 59/02/2008. This is imperative to the prosecutor's decision.
(2)(b) The prosecutor will decide whether or not to institute a prosecution in respect of INCHANGA CAS 32/06/2011 and INCHANGA CAS 59/02/2008 by 30 March 2012.
(3) The inspector's report compiled by the Department of Labour is now in the form of an affidavit and forms part of INCHANGA CAS 32/06/2011. The inspector's report/affidavit is therefore privileged information that cannot be disclosed as it forms part of the police docket.
Reply received: March 2012
PARLIAMENTARY QUESTION NO.: 79
DATE OF QUESTION: 09 FEBRUARY 2012
79. Mrs D A Schäfer (DA) to ask the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development:
(1) Whether the employment contract of a certain person (name furnished) as head of the Special Investigating Unit (SIU) was governed by the Public Service Act, 1994 (Proclamation No 103 of 1994); if not, in terms of which legislation was he appointed;
(2) whether the said person was paid any amount of money upon his resignation; if so, what was (a) the total amount paid and (b) the detailed breakdown of the amount?
NW86E
Details of person referred to: Adv Willem Heath
REPLY:-(1) I wish to inform the Honourable Member that the person referred to was appointed in terms of section 3 of the Special Investigating Units and Special Tribunals Act, 1996 (Act No. 74 of 1996), as the Head of the Special Investigating Unit (SIU), and as such, the Public Service Act, 1994 (Proclamation No 103 of 1994) did not govern his appointment.
(2) During his time in the position (he was appointed on 29 November 2011 and tendered his resignation, which was accepted, as the head of the SIU in writing on Wednesday, 14 December 2011), the person referred to was only compensated for certain incidental official subsistence and travelling expenses relating to his duties. He has not been paid any remuneration for his time in the position and nor will he be paid any further amounts.
Reply received: March 2012
PARLIAMENTARY QUESTION NO.: 3
DATE OF QUESTION: 09 FEBRUARY 2012
3. Mr P J Groenewald (FF Plus) to ask the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development:
(1) Whether he has taken any steps to recover the legal expenses which the State has paid in respect of a certain person (name furnished); if not, why not; if so, what steps;
(2) whether any amount for the legal expenses has been recovered from the person; if so, (a) what amount and (b) what outstanding amount has yet to be recovered;
(3) whether he will make a statement on the matter?
NW4A
Details of person referred to: Mr Jackie Selebi
REPLY:-(1) I wish to inform the Honourable Member that the State Attorney is currently liaising with the South African Police on the recovery of the legal expenses from Mr Selebi. In terms of financial prescripts governing the public service, when costs are expended by the State Attorney on behalf of a government department, the recovery of those costs is done in liaison with the Department responsible for the payment of these funds. In the Selebi matter, the Department concerned is the South African Police. I do not institute the proceedings for the recovery of costs, unless monies were expended from the vote account of the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development.
(2) I am informed that no amounts have been recovered as yet.
(3) No statement is necessary.