Questions & Replies: Justice & Constitutional Development

Share this page:
2013-03-15

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: June 2013

PARLIAMENTARY QUESTION NO: 1095
Mr SC Motau (DA) to ask the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development:


(1) What total amounts has (a) his department and (b) each specified entity reporting to him spent on (i) print and (ii) broadcast advertising in the (aa) 2009/10, (bb) 2010/11 (cc) 2011/12 and (dd) 2012/13 financial years;

(2) In each case, (a)(i) by which radio or television station were the advertisements broadcast and (ii) in which newspapers were the advertisements published in the (aa) 2009/10, (bb) 2010/11 (cc) 2011/12 and (dd) 2012/13 financial years and (b) at what cost in each specified case?
NW1328E

REPLY:-

1. I wish to inform the Honourable Member of the following expenditure:

A. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT:
MARKETING AND ADVERTISING EXPENDITURE:
Financial Year 2009/2010


(1) (a) (aa) 2009/2010: 4,688,853.41
(a) (i) 3,423,624.00
(a) (ii) 1,265,229.41

(2) (a) (i) Law on Call programme on Community Radio Stations:
▪ Zibonele Community Radio (WC)
▪ Bush Radio (WC)
▪ Radio Riverside (NC)
▪ Jozi FM (Gauteng)
▪ Mosupastela Community Radio (Free State)
▪ Qwaqwa Community Radio (Free State)
▪ Univen Community Radio (Limpopo)
▪ Unitra Community Radio (EC)
▪ Vukani Community Radio (EC)
▪ Nkqubela Community Radio (EC)
▪ Barberton Community Radio (MP)
▪ Moutse Community Radio (MP)
▪ Durban Youth Radio (KZN)
▪ New Castel Community Radio (KZN)
▪ Radio Mafisa (North West)

(a) (ii) City Press; Beeld; Sowetan; The Star; Daily Sun' Diamond Fields Advertiser; Daily News; Isolezwe; Cape Argus; Pretoria News.

(b) Refer to 1 (a) (i) and (a) (ii)

Financial Year 2010/2011

(1) (a) (aa) 2010/2011: 309,805.25
(b) (i) 309,805.25
(b) (i) N/A

(2) (a) (ii) 2010 World Cup: Efficiency of the Criminal Justice System:
▪ Horizon (British Airways)
▪ Sawubona (SAA)
▪ lndwe (SA Express)
▪ About Time (1 Time Airlines)
▪ Mango Juice (Mango Airlines)
▪ Khuluma (Khulula Airlines)

(b) Refer to (a) (I)

Financial Year 2011/2012

(1) (a) (aa) 2011/2012: 40,055,706.80
(C) (i) N/A

(c) (ii) 40,055,706.80
(2) Radio and Television education programs: Law on Call and Final Verdict
(i) SABC and Global Interface Consulting (Production of the TV Series)
(b) Refer to (a) (ii)

Financial Year 2012/2013
(1) (a) (aa)2012/2013: R5,388,022.33
(a) (i) R5,388,022,33 (GCIS facilitated all DOJ&CD media buying)
(a) (ii) N/A

(2) All advertising was done through GCIS as they are responsible for consulting and advising the department which publications are to be used for communication programs. No direct payment was paid to any media house by the DOJ & CD. The amount reflected in (a) (i) was transferred to GCIS for media buying purposes.

B. LEGAL AID SA:
MARKETING AND ADVERTISING EXPENDITURE:


(1) (b) I wish to inform the Honorable Member that Legal Aid spent the following total amounts in relation to:

Financial Year

(aa)
2009/2010

(bb)
2010/2011

(cc)
2011/2012

(dd)
2012/2013

Advertisement:

(i) Print-Newspapers

R 193,230.00

R458,230.00

R761,045.69

R371,717.12

Print-Billboards

R 758,402.10

R832,558.80

R879,726.60

R872,906.00

(ii) Broadcast Advertisement

R616,933.80

R1,811,157.15

R1,823,817.60

R2,785,070.99

(2) (b) Placement on:

Financial Year

(aa)
2009/2010

(bb)
2010/2011

(cc)
2011/2012

(dd)
2012/2013

(i) Print-Newspapers

▪ AVusa Media
▪ Media 24;
▪ Independent Newspapers

▪ AVusa Media
▪ Media 24;
▪ Independent Newspapers

Regional and National Newspapers

Print-Billboards

▪ Provantage
▪ Primedia

▪ Comutanet
▪ Media Solutions
▪ Primedia

▪ Primedia
▪ Comutanet

▪ Primedia
▪ Comutanet

(ii) Broadcast Advertisements-Radio

▪ SABC (African Languages Station) including RSG, Safm and Radio 2000;
▪ Regional (Kayafm & Gagasi

▪ SABC (African Languages Station);
▪ Regional & National Community Radio Forum (NCRF) stations

▪ SABC (African Languages Section)

▪ SABC (African Languages Stations)
▪ Motswako Radio Sales
▪ Community Radio Stations

TV

▪ SABS TV channel 1 & 2
▪ eTV

▪ SABC TV channels 1 & 2

▪ SABC TV channels 1 & 2
▪ eTV

C. NATIONAL PROSECUTING AUTHORITY OF SOUTH AFRICA (THE NPA):
MARKETING AND ADVERTISING EXPENDITURE:
Financial Year 2009/2010


(1) (a) (aa) 2009/2010: 3,190,735.00
(d) (i) R3,190,735.00
( 4 (ii) None

(2) (ii) City Press
Rapport
Sunday Times
Sowetan

Financial Year 2010/2011

(1) (a) (aa) 2010/2011: 4,301,565.00
(e) (i) 4,301,565.00
(e) (ii) None

(2) (ii) City Press
Rapport
Sunday Times
Sowetan

Financial Year 2011/2012

(1) (a) (aa) 2011/2012: 4,633,965.00
(f) (i) 1,770,741.00
(f) (ii) 2,863,224.00

(2) (i) The NPA 201 112012 educational radio campaign that took place between 2 May 2011 and 6 November 2011, was broadcasted on 15 SABC Radio Stations, covering millions of listeners throughout the entire country in all the official languages. The programme, was called "Legal Features" across all the participating radio stations. The stations included:

▪ Umhlobo Wenene FM ▪ Ukhozi FM
▪ Thobela FM ▪ Lesedi FM
▪ Phalaphala FM ▪ Ligwalagwala FM
▪ Munghana Lonene FM ▪ RSG
▪ Motsweding FM ▪ Lotus FM
▪ Ikhwezikwezi FM ▪ Tru FM
▪ Radio 2000 ▪ X-K FM
▪ SA FM

(2) (ii) City Press
Rapport
Sunday Times
Sowetan
Ads 24
Citizen
Daily Dispatch

Financial Year 2012/2013
(1 ) (b) (dd) 2012/2013: R4,712,660.00
(i) R1,042,070.00 (print)
(ii) R1,473,240.00 (radio)
R2,197,350.00 (television)

(2) (i) The NPA community Radio Campaign 2012 (Facilitated through GCIS).
180 specific community radio broadcasts to 28.8 million people over a four week period in October/November 2012:

▪ Aganang FM ▪ Impact Radio
▪ Alex FM ▪ lnkonujani FM
▪ Bush Radio ▪ lzwilethemba FM
▪ Eden FM ▪ lzwilomzantsi FM
▪ Eldoz FM Community ▪ Kangala Community Radio
▪ Radio ▪ Kanyamazane Community Radio
▪ Good News Community ▪ Khwezi Radio
Radio ▪ Lethabile Community Radio
▪ Greater Middleburg ▪ Moretele Radio
▪ Community Radio ▪ Helderberg FM
▪ Greater Tzaneen ▪ Mosupatsela FM
▪ Community Radio ▪ Motheo FM
▪ Moutse Community Radio ▪ Sekhukhune Community Radio
▪ Naledi Community Radio ▪ Soshanguve FM
▪ Nqublela FM ▪ Sound Fusion Media
▪ Panorama FM ▪ Star FM
▪ Phalaborwa Community ▪ Sunny South
▪ Radio ▪ Takalani Community Radio
▪ Radio Alpha ▪ Thetha FM
▪ Radio Graaf-Reinette ▪ Tshwane University of Technology
▪ Radio Helderberg ▪ Tubatse Community Radio
▪ Radio KC ▪ Umgungundlovu Community Radio
▪ Radio Khwezi ▪ Unique Radio
▪ Radio Kragbron ▪ Unitra
▪ Radio Mafisa ▪ Vaaltar FM
▪ Radio Namakwaland ▪ Vukani Community Radio
▪ Radio Panorama ▪ Whale Cost FM
▪ Radio Riverside ▪ Zibonele FM

▪ Radio Sunny South
▪ Radio Zibonele
▪ Rainbow FM

The NPA is producing a community television campaign with Tshwane Community TV. The campaign is an extension of the successful educational campaigns that were previously conducted on SABS Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) Stations in 2011, and subsequently on 45 community radio stations in 2012.

(All advertising was done through GClS as they are responsible for consulting and advising the department which publications are to be used for communication programs. No direct payment was paid to any media house by the NPA)

(2) (ii) Newspapers

City Press

R150,000.00

Sunday Times

R350,000.00

Sowetan

R80,000.00

The New Age

R26,376.00

Rapport

R16,560.00

Mercury

R17,946.00

Daily Sun

R63,927.00

Daily Dispatch

R16,501.00

Herald

R17,556.00

Diamond Field Advertiser

R5,967.00

The Citizen

R5,636.00

Cape Times

R31,678.00

Reply received: May 2013

PARLIAMENTARY QUESTION NO.: 993

DATE OF QUESTION: 10 MAY 2013

DATE OF SUBMISSION: 24 MAY 2013

Mrs. D. A Schäfer (DA) to ask the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development:

(1)(a) What are the reasons that Xuan Binh Dang and Huong Giang Chu alleged rhino horn

Poachers, have not been brought to trial since 2010 and (b) why were the alleged poachers not

Asked to plead up until 1 May 2013;

(2)Whether the non-availability of interpreters was the only reason the case was struck from the

roll; if not, what were the other reasons;

(3)(a) When did his department make the first attempt to secure Vietnamese interpreters, (b) what

were the reasons for not being able to secure interpreters, (c) who attempted to secure the requisite

interpreters and (d) whose responsibility is it to secure interpreters;

(4)Were the accused given back their passports at any stage; if so, (a) when and (b) by whom;

(5)Have the accused been (a)(i) re-charged and/or (ii) charged with any other offence and (b) are

they currently in custody? NW1216E

REPLY:

I wish to inform the Honourable Member that the National Prosecuting Authority is ready to proceed with Trial. The reasons for the various postponements are as follows: In the absence of an interpreter charges could not be put and therefore the accused could not plea therefore, the reason for the matter being struck from the roll was due to non-availability of the interpreter; the Department tried to secure an interpreter as from 24 August 2011; there were Vietnamese interpreters available but were compromised due to the fact that they failed crime security intelligence test, and that most of the interpreters were related to the accused. The Department however successfully secured a Vietnamese interpreter with the right dialect from Kenya over the Weekend of 6 and 7 May 2013 and the charges were reinstated. The accused remain in custody and are charged with Contravention of Section 49 (1); section 49 (14) and section 49 (15) of the Immigration Act 13 of 2002. The matter has now been postponed to 16 September 2013 for trial.

Reply received: May 2013

PARLIAMENTARY QUESTION NO.: 973

Dr. D T George (DA) to ask the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development:

(1) Since 1 January 2011, how many applications under the Promotion of Access to Information Act, Act 2 of 2000, were received by (a) his department and (b) entities reporting to him, and in each case, how many were (i) granted, (ii) refused and (iii) deemed refused under section 27;

(2) since 1 January 2011, how many internal appeals under the Act were received by (a) his department and (b) entities reporting to him, and in each case, how many were (i) granted, (ii) refused and (iii) deemed refused under section 77(7);

(3) who is the information officer for (a) his department and (b) each entity reporting to him, and in each case, what are the contact details of the officer? NW1196E

REPLY: -

The Department and one of the entities reporting to me are daily engaging with the matters relating to the Promotion of Access to Information Act, Act 2 of 2000. The tables bellows represent the information requested by the Honourable Member:

DOJ&CD

Number of Applications received

Period

Granted

Refused

Deemed Refused under Section 27

285

792

1131

2010/11

2011/12

2012/13

152

141

854

7

12

4

3

1

30

SIU

4

2010/11

0

4

0

Appeals matters:

DOJ&CD

Number of Appeals

Period

Granted

Refused

Deemed Refused under Section 27

3

3

6

2010/11

2011/12

2012/13

1

0

4

1

0

0

0

0

1

SIU

0

2010/11

0

0

0

Information Officers for the Department and SIU are Ms. N. Sindane on: NSindane@justice.gov.za; 012 406 - 4700 and fax: 012 406 -4713 and Ms N. Mokhatla on NMokhatla@siu.org.za, 012) 843 0001, fax: 012) 843 -0115, respectively.

Reply received: May 2013

PARLIAMENTARY QUESTION NO.: 925

Adv. A de W Alberts (FF Plus) to ask the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development:

(1)Whether Government, since the ratification of the International Covenant on Civil and Political

Rights (ICCPR), reports to the monitoring convention body, the Human Rights Committee, every

Five years as required with regard to steps taken by Government to implement the ICCPR in South

Africa; if not, why not; if so, (a) how and (b) by whom the reports are compiled;

(2)Whether public participation is permitted; if not, why not;

(3)Whether the public has access to these reports; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details;

(4) Whether any of the reports provide feedback on the implementation of section 27 that deals with

the rights of ethnic, religious and language minorities; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant

details? NW1118E

REPLY:

I wish to inform the Honourable Member that, in 2012 our Government made a commitment to deal with the human rights reports backlog. The initial report on the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) has been prepared by the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development in consultation with the rellevant Government Departments, National Human Rights Institutions and Civil Society Organisations. The report is being revised as recommended by the Cabinet Committee on Justice, Crime Prevention and Security; thereafter it will, as soon as possible, be submitted to Cabinet for approval.

As indicated above, National Human Rights Institutions and Civil Society Organisations are consulted when preparing human rights reports as required by Treaty Bodies. After the reports have been considered by Treaty Bodies, these reports and concluding recommendations and observations of the Treaty Bodies will be circulated to the public.

Indeed the ICCPR reports do contain information on implementation of article 27 relating to the rights of minorities. As already indicated, the public will have sight of the report, after the report has been publicised.

Reply received: May 2013

PARLIAMENTARY QUESTION NO.: 896

Adv. A de W Alberts (FF Plus) to ask the Minister of Justice and Constitutional

Development:

Whether the Government intends to create a section 36(4) declaration on the Protocol on the

African Court on People and International Law of the African Union that will make it possible for individuals to directly apply at the African Court; if so, (a) when it will take place and (b) what are the further relevant details; if not, why not, given (i) South Africa's Constitution that make provision for the protection of individual human rights by the national courts and (ii) the fact that the Constitution requests that international law is taken into account in the interpretation of the Bill of Rights contained in Chapter 2?

REPLY:-

I wish to inform the Honourable Member that the issue of making a declaration to allow individual access to the African Court on Human and People's Rights is being considered by the Government. The legal opinions from the Office of the Chief State Law advisors in the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development, and Office of International Law Advisors in the Department of International Relations and Cooperation were obtained. The matter is to be considered by the Directors-General and Ministers of the Justice Crime Prevention and Security Cluster. If it is approved by Cabinet, the Parliament will be approached to adopt a resolution so that the declaration be made. Our timeframe target is, November 2013, depending on the schedule of Parliament.

Reply received: May 2013

QUESTION FOR WRITTEN REPLY

PARLIAMENTARY QUESTION NO.: 779

Mr N J J van R Koornhof (Cope) to ask the Minister of Justice and Constitutional

Development:

Whether his department has had a concerted programme since 1994 to fast-track the

advancement of black justices in the judiciary without causing friction with other race and gender groups; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details? NW964E

REPLY:

I wish to inform the Honourable Member that, yes, the programme aimed at accelerating the appointment of women judges, has been developed to advance the transformation of the judiciary. With regard to the appointment of women judges, my predecessor, Mrs Mabandla initiated and sponsored a Programme to Fast-track the Appointment of Women Judges which was implemented by former Chief Justice Pius Langa and Heads of Courts. Through this Programme, carefully selected women practitioners underwent a specially designed judicial education programme which aimed at enhancing their opportunity for appointment to the bench. I am advised that some of the 32 women who underwent this programme were subsequently appointed to the bench.

The objective sought to be achieved through this programme and other similar programmes such as our on-going programme regarding the allocation of 65% state' legal briefs to previously disadvantaged legal practitioners are calculated at giving effect to the constitutional imperative contemplated in section 174(2) of the Constitution. I am not aware of any racial or gender-based frictions that arise from the mere compliance with this constitutional injunction.

Reply received: May 2013

PARLIAMENTARY QUESTION NO.: 776

Adv A de W Alberts (FF Plus) to ask the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development:

Whether the Government will accede to the International Convention on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR); if not, what is the reason for non-accession to this convention; if so, what (a) is the timeline for the ratification and (b) are the further relevant details?

Reply:

I wish to inform the Honourable Member that, the Cabinet has approved that South Africa accede to the International Convention on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and that Parliament be approached for accession. It is expected that very soon, depending on its programme, Parliament will consider the Convention in accordance with its Rules.

Reply received: May 2013

PARLIAMENTARY QUESTION NO.: 755

Mr N J J van R Koornhof (Cope) to ask the Minister of Justice and Constitutional

Development

(1) Whether he has found that the recent Judicial Service Commission attempts at transformation targets (details furnished) are too late and divisive; if not, why not; if so, (2) whether his department has developed a systematic programme for achieving these targets further down the line; if so, what are the relevant details?

REPLY:-

I wish to inform the Honourable Member that, by virtue of him being a member of the Judicial Service Commission, the Commission, when it considers judicial appointments, exercises its function independently of the Department. The Honourable Member would have read the statements issued by the Commission following the recent resignation of Adv. Smuts, SC as its member, that the Commission never sidelines White males candidates, whenever it considers, whether the candidates who have been nominated for judicial office meet the requirements. This is proven by statistics of candidates recommended to all the Presidents of the Republic, since the establishment of the Commission in 1995.

Regarding the second part of the question, I wish to mention that the Department, as part of excising its constitutional mandate, initiates and promotes legislation that is aimed at creating an enabling environment for the realization of the transformation goals set out in the Constitution. The South African Judicial Education Institute Act of 2008 is one example of such legislation. This Act establishes a Judiciary-led Institute which is tasked with the responsibility of honing and harnessing judicial skills and competencies of serving and aspirant judicial officers through appropriate judicial education programmes across all racial lines.

Reply received: May 2013

PARLIAMENTARY QUESTION NO.: 694

Mr. L. Ramatlakane (Cope) to ask the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development:

Whether all the departments have implemented the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, Act 3 of 2000, to galvanise the fight against corruption by promoting transparency and accountability; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details?

REPLY:-

Whether all the Departments have implemented the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, 2000

I wish to inform the Honourable Member that, yes, the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development understands that all Departments are implementing the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, 2000 (PAJA), although at varying levels.

It needs to be mentioned that until the 2011/12 financial year, the assessments on the Implementation of the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act were conducted by the Office of the Public Service Commission (OPSC). However, that has since changed with the development of the Management Performance Assessment Tool (MPAT), more specifically the Second Cycle of the MPAT in the 2012/13 financial year, conducted by the Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation in the Presidency (DPME).

Reply received: May 2013

PARLIAMENTARY QUESTION NO.: 672

Mr M Waters (DA) to ask the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development:

(1) How many persons have been found to be unsuitable to work with children (a) in the

(i) 2010-11 and (ii) 2011-12 financial years and (b) since 1 April 2013;

(2) how many of the abovementioned persons' particulars were sent to the Department

of Social Development for inclusion in the Child Protection Register? NW748E

REPLY:-

The following statistics in the table below depicts the number of persons found to be unsuitable to work with children as reported by the Court Clerks. The statistics stipulated range from November 2011 to March 2013:

Region

Number of Form 28 Submitted

Eastern Cape

19

Free State

0

Gauteng

11

KZN

72

Limpopo

6

Mpumalanga

0

North West

6

Northern Cape

23

Western Cape

18

Grand Total

155

Reply received: April 2013

PARLIAMENTARY QUESTION NO.: 668

668. Mr L Ramatlakane (Cope) to ask the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development:

(1) Whether his department is working on cases surfacing out of previously acknowledged crimes and evidence that were before the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC); if not, why not; if so,

(2) What are the relevant details pertaining to previously closed cases from the TRC where new evidence is obtained?

The Priority Crimes Litigation Unit (PCLU) of the Office of the National Director of Public Prosecution was in 2003 mandated to manage and direct investigations and prosecutions relating to cases falling within the mandate of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. The investigations themselves are the responsibility of the South African Police Service (SAPS). The TRC itself did not identify specific cases to be prosecuted and in fact the cases originate from referrals by SAPS, Directors of Public Prosecution and victims.

The question is specifically directed to previously closed cases when new evidence is obtained. To date no such cases have been referred to the Priority Crimes Litigation Unit. The Priority Crimes Litigation Unit is however managing ten investigations into matters falling within the mandate of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. The details of these specific cases cannot be provided as they relate to on-going investigations, the integrity of which would be compromised if information about the cases were to be placed in the public domain.

BACKGOUND INFORMATION

After the resignation of Mr Ngcuka, the Acting NDPP placed a moratorium on the investigation of TRC matters, pending the formulation of TRC Guidelines. This again led to no attention being able to be given to the cases. It took a number of years before the guidelines were approved. The guidelines removed the exclusive mandate to deal with TRC cases from the PCLU, locating same within an inter-departmental TRC Committee. The guidelines made provision for a decision to be taken not to prosecute if the accused met the criteria of the amnesty provisions of the TRC.

Human rights organisations brought a successful application to have the TRC Guidelines declared unconstitutional. The work on TRC cases was suspended pending this process. After judgment was handed down, no work was again done, pending Government deciding whether to appeal the judgment or not. After the decision was taken not to appeal, SAPS indicated that it would commence investigations. Subsequently, the National Commissioner indicated that SAPS would suspend investigations, pending the outcome of the Ginwala Commission.

After the conclusion of the Commission, negotiations were held with the Provincial Head of the Detective Service to recommence investigations. After he agreed to do so, the DPCI was established and the TRC cases were transferred to it. A component of its Head Office is responsible for the investigation of all matters, but these investigations are subject to DPCI being able to fulfil its primary mandate, namely the investigation of serious national and international State security crimes.

After the DPCI commenced its investigations in 2010, further cases were closed, but a small number of new matters were reported, resulting in a current figure of 10 cases under investigation. These matters require extensive investigations before it can be determined whether or not there are grounds for instituting prosecutions.

Reply received: April 2013

QUESTION 667 FOR WRITTEN REPLY

PARLIAMENTARY QUESTION NO.: 667

667. Mr L S Ngonyama (Cope) to ask the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development:

(1) Whether the National Prosecuting Authority has a record of how many cases were referred to them by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission; if not, why not; if so, how many are still under investigation;

(2) whether the department handling the specified matters will be able to complete these investigations by any given deadline; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details?

The National Prosecuting Authority has record of the cases emanating from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) process currently under investigation, but not as a direct referral from the TRC, because at the time of the Commission, the National Prosecuting Authority did not exist. Out of 50 cases that were identified, these were subsequently reduced to 16 and out of the 16:

· 4 matters were prosecuted, Details of these cases have been provided in the NPA's annual reports to Parliament.

· The remaining cases are all closed due to the lack of evidence.

The responsibility for the conduct of the investigations rests with South African Police Service and more specifically the Directorate of Priority Crime Investigation.

It is not possible to place a deadline for the conclusion of those investigations, as the duration of each investigation is determined by the unique features of that specific case. It has to be accepted that the investigation of TRC matters cannot be conducted in the same expeditious manner as current crime, due to a variety of facts including the age of the case, the destruction of official documentation and the availability of suspects and witnesses.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION:

The National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) at no stage received a formal referral by the TRC of specific cases which the TRC sought to be prosecuted. In this regard reference is made to Volume 5, Chapter 8 of the TRC's final report which was to the following effect:

"Where amnesty has not been sought or been denied, prosecution should be considered where evidence exists that an individual has committed a gross human rights violation. In this regard, the Commission will make available to the appropriate authorities information in its possession concerning serious allegations against individuals (excluding privileged information such as that contained in amnesty applications)."

When the TRC was established in 1996, the NPA was not in existence and the issue of prosecutions was the exclusive responsibility of the Attorneys General appointed to the country's provinces at the time. The investigation of crime was not the exclusive responsibility of SAPS, because a number of other police services were in existence at that time. The investigation of matters which would be classified as TRC cases was therefore dealt with on a fragmented basis.

The first attempt at a consolidated approach was with the establishment of the D'Oliviera Unit to take forward the work of the Goldstone Commission, but limited only to a small number of cases relating to alleged atrocities committed by the security agencies of the apartheid regime.

The TRC Act specifically made provision for investigations/prosecutions to be put on hold pending amnesty applications. Although a single national police service had been established at that time, the investigations were being conducted by a diversity of different police units. The National Commissioner however took the decision to suspend the investigations on all cases which SAPS regarded as falling within the ambit of the TRC mandate, where it was anticipated that amnesty applications would be made. This was to avoid wasted costs.

The TRC tabled its annual report in 1998 prior to the conclusion of the amnesty process which was only finalised in 2003. Shortly after the appointment of the first NDPP in September 1998, he established a component in his office, which comprised of lawyers to deal with TRC matters. Although informal meetings were held between members of the TRC and this office, no formal evidence which would justify the institution of prosecutions was ever handed over by the TRC.

As admitted by the TRC itself, its most crucial evidence would be inadmissible for prosecutions. Decisions could not be taken on a number of cases because the amnesty judgments were still outstanding. No investigators were available to conduct investigations. After a period of three years, the unit disbanded. No records are available relating to matters dealt with by it. The D'Oliviera Unit was also dissolved.

In 2003 the NDPP decided to prioritise TRC cases and referred them to the Priority Crimes Litigation Unit (PCLU), which had only been established in March of that year. The unit at that stage only comprised three senior advocates. The reason for the NDPP's decision was that the amnesty process had been finalised and the President had addressed Parliament informing it that the issue of prosecutions would be left to the NPA to be dealt with in accordance with its mandate. There was again no question of a specific set of cases being identified for prosecution by the Amnesty Committee.

The PCLU, although hampered by severe resource constraints, attempted to identify cases where amnesty had been refused or not applied for and where evidence was available. This was done by requesting the Divisional Head of the Detective Service of SAPS to issue an order calling on the Provincial Heads of the Detective Services to refer all outstanding cases which were regarded as TRC matters to the PCLU. In the same vein, the Directors of Public Prosecution were also requested to refer all matters that had been submitted to them to the PCLU prior to the order from the Divisional Head of the Detective Service. Former members of the D'Oliviera Unit and the NDPP's component were also interviewed to establish whether they were in possession of cases. Finally, amnesty judgments were perused, but in the main it was established that the persons who were refused amnesty, had already been convicted. Due to publicity given to the mission of the PCLU, a small number of victims also requested that their matters be investigated.

This exercise resulted in the identification of 400 cases. However, in respect of 350 of them, these were closed, either on the basis of amnesty granted or due to lack of evidence. In respect of the remaining 50, all these matters required further investigations before decisions could be taken whether to prosecute or not. Requests made by the PCLU to SAPS and the DSO to investigate the matters unfortunately received a negative response, preventing those cases being taken forward.

Reply received: April 2013

PARLIAMENTARY QUESTION NO.: 641

641 Dr D T George (DA) to ask the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development:

(1) How many claims were instituted against his department (a) in the (i) 2007-08, (ii) 2008-09, (iii) 2009-10, (iv) 2010-11 and (v) 2011-12 financial years and (b) during the period 1 April 2012 up to the latest specified date for which information is available;

(2) in respect of each specified financial year, (a) what amount was claimed, (b) how many claims were (i) finalised in court, (ii) settled out of court and (iii) are still outstanding and (c) what amount has been paid to each plaintiff in each case that was (i) finalised in court and (ii) settled out of court? NW800E

REPLY:- I wish to inform the Honourable Member, that the claims instituted against my Department are tabulated in the table below. However, due to the volumes of cases, it is not possible to provide each claim and each settlement in a Parliamentary question. Therefore, the Department has aggregated information.

YEAR

TOTAL NUMBER OF CLAIMS

TOTAL AMOUNT CLAIMED

CLAIMS FINALISED IN COURT

CLAIMS SETTLED OUT OF COURT

CLAIMS OUTSTANDING

AMOUNT PAID

COURT ORDER

SETTLE

MENT

2007-2008

103

R2,464,374,000-00

*

*

372

R1,388,919-98

2008-2009

89

R661,467,000-00

*

*

330

R3,374,592-00

2009-2010

155

R440,369,000-00

*

*

392

R1,417,829-38

2010-2011

134

R227,790,000-00

*

*

438

R722,996-83

2011-2012

216

R1,609,727,000-00

*

*

661

R1,034,088-70

R1,893,386-60

2012-2013

(Include information until 28 March 2013)

250

R1,049,235,975-72

8

5

855

R453,824-68

R620,733-20

*The information requested is not readily available.

Reply received: April 2013

PARLIAMENTARY QUESTION NO.: 597

597 Mrs D A Schäfer (DA) to ask the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development:

(1) (a) How many presidential commissions of enquiry have been established since 1994 and (b) with regard to each such commission, (i) what is the (aa) name and (bb) subject of each specified inquiry, (ii)(aa) on what date and (bb) for what period was it established, (iii)(aa) what budget was allocated to it and (bb) from which departmental budget in each case and (iv) what amount was, or has been, spent against the budget in each case;

(2) where is information with regard to presidential commissions of enquiry reported?

Reply: I wish to inform the Honourable Member that the Department has recorded 11 Presidential Commissions of Enquiry as attached list and the other data relating to this enquiry is being collated and will be submitted to the Member soon.

The Department is only able to provide the information applicable to commissions the Department administered. The budgets and amounts spent by those commissions administered by other Departments would not be known to us. A report is usually submitted to the President through the Minister of the Department responsible for the administering of the commission, after the Commission has finalized its work.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION:

1. COMMISSIONS OF INQUIRY IN TERMS OF THE COMMISSIONS ACT, 1947 (ACT NO. 8 OF 1947)

2. Kindly note that the Department/Province that requested the President to appoint a commission is responsible for the budget and records of that commission.

3. The responsible Department is to transfer all records (transcriptions, written evidence, exhibits, correspondence, etc.) to National Archives, Pretoria, after a period of twenty (20) years or sooner if so allowed by the National Archivist.

4. The Department of Justice and Constitutional Development will only be able to provide the information applicable to commissions the Department administered. The budgets and amounts spend by those commissions administered by other Departments would not be known to us.

5. A report is usually submitted to the President via the Minister of the Department responsible for the administering of the commission. The report does not contain the records of the particular Commission.

6. It is not possible to budget for a Commission and therefore once a commission has been established the responsible Department/Province has to secure monies from the budget allocated to it and/or request Treasury for additional funds where monies from the existing budget cannot be utilized to fund the commission.

7. The Department, recorded nine (9) Commissions of Inquiry for the period in question.

8. Name and Terms of Reference of Commissions Administered by the Department

9. Commission of Inquiry into the Alleged Arms Transactions between Armscor and one Eli Wazan and other Related Matters (Government Notice No. R.150 dated 14 October 1994)

1. To inquire into, consider and report on –

(a) all aspects and surrounding circumstances of the transaction/s between Armscor and one Eli Wazan for the sale of weapons as well as arms components and related material;

(b) the facts relating to the said transaction/s as well as details of other arms deals, and other transactions relating to arms components and related material, during the period 2 February 1990 to date hereof with a view to the identification of any possible similarities between such other deals and transactions and the transaction/s referred to in paragraph (a) above;

(c) the identity of all persons, parties and/or countries involved in such transactions and their antecedents;

(d) whether there was any connection between such transactions and any other matter;

(e) whether such transactions violated (a) any law and/or (b) any international embargo;

(f) whether prima facie evidence exists indicating that any person committed –

(i) a criminal offence; and

(g) (ii) serious misconduct, negligence or impropriety.

2. To comment – in the context of South Africa's national and international obligations and responsibilities – on the appropriateness of –

(i) South Africa's current trade policy with regard to weapons and components with reference to weapons and related materials; and

(a) (ii) decision-making processes with regard to such trade.

3. To submit an interim report (and further interim reports) as soon as possible.

10. Commission of Inquiry Into The Rationalisation of The Provincial and Local Divisions of The Supreme Court (Government Notice No. R.20 dated 31 March 1995)

1. To inquire, as a matter of urgency, into and to report upon, and to make recommendations regarding the rationalization of the provincial and local divisions of the Supreme Court as envisaged by section 242 read with section 241 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1993 (Act No. 200 of 1993) with more specific reference to –

11. (i) the efficacy or otherwise of the existing court structures and the suitability or otherwise of the existing areas of jurisdiction, and, subject to subparagraph (b) below, the Commission's recommendations regarding;

(a) (ii) the desirability of altering the existing court structures and/or the existing areas of jurisdiction;

12. (i) the desirability of creating within each of the nine provinces established under section 124(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1993 (Act No. 200 of 1993) a provincial and/or local division or divisions of the Supreme Court, and, should the Commission advise the creation of such divisions, its recommendations regarding;

(a) (ii) the seat of each such proposed division;

(b) (iii) the area of jurisdiction of each such proposed division;

(c) (iv) the numerical strength of the bench in each such proposed division;

(d) (v)the name of each such proposed division;

13. The need for improved access to justice for civil litigants in the Supreme Court through:

14. The creation of specialist courts such as the Commercial Court functioning in Johannesburg;

15. The establishment of a Circuit Court system for the adjudication of civil cases;

16. the desirability of extending the original civil jurisdiction of each provincial and local division of the Supreme Court by empowering it to entertain all causes, wherever arising, in those matters in which the defendant or respondent is an incola of South Africa as a whole;

17. legislation (including transitional legislation) and other measures designed to secure the implementation of the Commission's recommendations; and

18. any other matter relevant to the implementation of the Commission's recommendations, including the financial implications thereof.

1. With regard to the Terms of Reference above, the Commission is enjoined to obtain and to consider the views and submissions of all interested parties, including members of the judiciary, members of the practising legal professions, members of the public, attorneys-general, masters of the Supreme Court, registrars of deeds, registrars of the Supreme Court, magistrates, legal academics, lawyers organizations, members of the South African Police Service, and the premiers of the nine provinces.

2. The Commission is further enjoined, in the exercise of its discretion, to prepare and submit interim reports from time to time.

19. Commission of Inquiry Into The Incidents That Led To Violence In The Former Bophuthatswana on 11 March 1994, and The Deaths That Occurred As A Result Thereof (Government Notice No. R.680 dated 7June 1996)

(a) To inquire into and report upon the Incidents that led to the Violence in the former Bophuthatswana on 11 March 1994, and the Deaths that occurred as a result thereof, with more specific reference to –

20. The identity of the deceased in each instance;

21. The circumstances of each death;

22. The cause or likely cause of each death; and

23. Whether or not in respect of each death, the death was brought about by any act or omission prima facie involving or amounting to an offence on the part of any person (or persons) and, if so, what the identity of such person (or persons) is.

(a) If the Commission is unable to record any such finding, it shall record that fact.

(b) The Commission is further enjoined, in the exercise of its discretion, to prepare and interim reports from time to time.

24. Commission of Inquiry Into Certain Allegations Against Mr. Dumisa Ntsebeza and Related Matters (Government Notice No. R.1737 dated 12 November1997)

1. To consider and investigate the contents of the affidavit given by Mr. Bennett Sibaya to the South African Police on or about 4 January 1994, and the circumstances in which it came to be given by him.

2. To investigate in particular the allegations made against Mr. Dumisa Ntsebeza concerning the attack on the Heidelberg Tavern on 30 December 1993 and the manner in which they were dealt with both by the South African Police Services and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

3. To consider and investigate the contents of the affidavit given by Mr. Bennett Sibaya to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission on 3 November 1997 and the circumstances in which it came to be given by him.

4. To examine whether the allegations against Mr. Dumisa Ntsebeza are true or are part of a conspiracy by any person or persons to discredit the Truth and Recociliation Commission.

5. In so far as it may be relevant to any of the matters referred to in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4, to investigate the supply of weapons or transport for the attack on the Heidelberg Tavern on 30 December 1993.

6. In so far as it may be relevant to the matters referred to in paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 4, to investigate the role of any Security forces or related agencies or informers and especially that of the late Superintendant D. Segal with regard to the court proceedings relating to the attack on the Heidelberg Tavern.

25. To submit a report to the President as soon as possible.

26. Commission of Inquiry Into Allegations of Spying Against The National Director of Public Prosecutions Mr.BT Ngcuka (Government Notice No. R.66 dated 19 September 2003)

1. The Commission shall inquire into, make findings, report on and make recommendations concerning the following:

(a) Whether at any stage prior to 1994, the National Director of Public Prosecutions, Mr. BT Ngcuka, was –

27. registered with the security branch or any other security service of any pre-1994 government as an agent under the code name RS452 or under any other code name; and

28. acting as an agent for the Security Police and/or National Intelligence Service of any pre-1994 government.

1. 2. These terms of reference may be added to, varied or amended from time to time.

2. The Commission shall commence with its duties forthwith and must report within one month or as soon as possible thereafter.

3. The Commission shall have the power to publish interim reports.

4. Please note that the terms of reference were amended by General Notice dated 12 November 2003 (Government Gazette 25722) as follows:

5. The allegations made by Messrs Maharaj and Shaik that the National Director of Public Prosecutions was an agent of the security services of pre-1994 government under code name RS452 or any other code name and. As a result thereof, improperly and in violation of the law, taken advantage of or misused the prosecuting authority and, in particular, abused, advanced, promoted, prejudiced or undermined the rights and/or interests of any person or organization;

6. These terms of reference may be added to, varied or amended from time to time.

7. 3. The Commission shall commence with its duties forthwith and must report within one month or as soon as possible thereafter.

8. 4. The Commission shall have the power to publish interim reports.

29. Commission of Inquiry Into The Mandate and Location of The Directorate of Special Operations (Government Notice No. R.317 dated 1 April 2005)

1. The Commission shall inquire into, making findings, report on and make recommendations concerning the following, taking into consideration the Constitution and relevant legislation, policies and guidelines:

(a) The rationale behind the establishment of the DSO and its location;

(b) The mandate of the DSO and an evaluation of the implementation thereof;

(c) The systems for management, control, communication, oversight and accountability by the DSO;

(d) The accountability, effectiveness, efficiency and oversight in respect of the intelligence operations of the DSO;

(e) The Constitutional and legislative mandates of the South African Police Service (SAPS) and the intelligence agencies, with particular reference to their roles in respect of organized and high level priority crimes;

(f) The systems for coordination and cooperation between the SAPS and the intelligence agencies on the one hand and the DSO on the other;

(g) The efficacy of coordinating systems that exist between the above structures (DSO and the SAPS), including matters related to (1) the rationalization of resources; (2) approaches to and standards related to training (3) minimizing undue duplication; (4) the coordination of operations; (5) priority setting mechanisms; (6) liaison with foreign law enforcement and intelligence structures and where relevant private sector entities; and (7) the impact of locating investigators and prosecutors within the National prosecuting Authority; and

(h) The need to review the present legislative framework and to make recommendations on; (a) remedial actions, if any, to address deficiencies identified in line with the terms of reference; (b) various options regarding the suitable location of the DSO, including the appropriate legislative framework.

2. These terms of reference may be added to, varied or amended from time to time.

3. The Commission shall commence with its duties forthwith and must report within three months or as soon as possible thereafter.

4. The Commission shall have the power to provide the President with interim reports.

5. The Commission shall be subject to and be conducted in terms of the provisions of the Commissions Act, 1947 (Act No. 8 of 1947), as amended, and the regulations published thereunder.

30. Commission of Inquiry To Conduct An Investigation Into The Alleged Illicit Activities of Certain South African Companies or Individuals Relating To The United Nations Oil-For-Food Programme In Iraq (Government Notice No. R.159 dated 17 February 2006)

1. (i) Having regard to the Constitution of the republic of South Africa, other relevant legislation, International Law, South Africa's international law obligations deriving from UN Resolutions, the Commission shall investigate, report on and make recommendations regarding the following matters:

(a) (a)Whether the alleged surcharges on oil sales or illicit payments in regard to purchases of humanitarian goods or any other illicit payments in respect of the Programme, or the offer to make such payments, referred to in the Report of the IIC and as identified and set out in the attached Annexure, were in fact paid or offered to be paid, by such identified South African companies or individuals;

(b) If so, whether any such conduct, as outlined in the Annexure, of any such South African company or person, falls within the jurisdiction of a South African court of law; and

(c) If so, whether any conduct, as outlined in the Annexure, of such company or person, amounts to the commission of –

(d) (aa) any offence, which offence may be tried by a South African court of law and whether there is sufficient and admissible evidence to provide a reasonable prospect of a successful prosecution; or

(e) (bb) any other illegal, illicit or irregular activity, which activity does not necessarily constitute an offence, but contravenes or violates any other South African law.

(f) (d)In the case of the commission of any offence or illegal, illicit or irregular activity contemplated in paragraph 1(i)(c)(aa) or (bb) above, any proposed action or steps to be taken in respect of such offence, contravention or violation.

(g) (e) Any further proposed actions or steps to be taken to prevent companies or persons falling under South African jurisdiction, from getting involved in future illegal, illicit or irregular international activities, for example, sanction-busting in respect of internationally imposed sanctions, including the enactment of legislative measures or the establishment of systems and mechanisms, to ensure that such companies and persons do not, in future, contravene binding UN Resolutions.

2. (ii)As a first step in the investigation, all evidence and information obtained and assessed by the IIC, which relate to South African companies or individuals and which may assist in this investigation, must be accessed and analysed.

31. The Commission shall commence with its duties forthwith and must report to the President within three months from date of the establishment thereof, or with the consent of the President, as soon as possible thereafter.

32. These terms of reference may be added to, varied or amended from time to time.

33. The Commission shall have power to provide the President with interim reports.

34. The Commission shall be subject to, and be conducted in terms of, the provisions of the Commissions Act, 1947 (Act No. 8 of 1947) as amended, and regulations made with reference to the said Commission.

35. Commission of Inquiry Into Allegations of Fraud, Corruption, Impropriety or Irregularity in the Strategic Defence Procurement Package ("the SDPP") (Government Notice No. R.926 dated 4 November 2011)

1. The Commission of Inquiry shall inquire into, make findings, report on and make recommendations concerning the following, taking into consideration the Constitution and relevant legislation, policies and guidelines:

1.1 The rationale for the SDPP.

1.2 Whether the arms and equipment acquired in terms of the SDPP are underutilised or not utilized at all.

1.3 Whether job opportunities anticipated to flow from the SDPP have materialised at all and:

1.3.1 if they have, the extent to which they have materialized; and

1.3.2 if they have not, the steps that ought to be taken to realize them.

1.4 Whether off-sets anticipated to flow from the SDPP have materialized at all and:

1.4.1 if they have, the extent to which they have materialized; and

1.4.2 if they have not, the steps that ought to be taken to realize them.

1.5 Whether any person/s, within and/or outside the Government of South Africa, improperly influenced the award or conclusion of any of the contracts awarded and concluded in the SDPP procurement process and, if so:

1.5.1 Whether legal proceedings should be instituted against such persons, and the nature of such legal proceedings; and

1.5.2 Whether, in particular, there is any basis to pursue such persons for the recovery of any losses that the State might have suffered as a result of their conduct.

1.6 Whether any contract concluded pursuant to the SDPP procurement process is tainted by any fraud or corruption capable of proof, such as to justifyits cancellation, and the ramifications of such cancellation.

2. These terms of reference may be added to, varied or amended from time and time.

3. The Commissions Act, 1947 (Act No. 8 of 1947) shall apply to the Commission, subject to such amendments and exemptions as may be specified by proclamation from time to time.

4. The Commission shall submit interim reports and recommendations to the President from time to time and at least every six months prior to the finalization of its report for presentation to the President. The Commission shall complete its work within a period of two years from date hereof and shall submit its final report to the President within a period of six months after the date on which the Commission completes its work.

5. Regulations shall be made in terms of the Commissions Act, 1947 and shall apply to the Commission in order to enable the Commission to conduct its work meaningfully and effectively and to facilitate the gathering of evidence by conferring on the Commission powers such as are necessary, including the power to enter and search premises, secure the attendance of witnesses and compel the production of documents.

36. Commission of Inquiry Into the Tragic Incident at or near the Area commonly known as the Marikana Mine in Rustenburg, North West Province, South Africa (Government Notice No. R.50 dated 12 September 2012)

1. The Commission shall inquire into, make findings, report on and make recommendations concerning the following, taking into consideration the Constitution and other relevant legislation, policies and guidelines:

2. The Commissions Act, 1947 (Act No. 8 of 1947) shall apply to the Commission, subject to such amendments and exemptions as may be specified by proclamation from time to time.

3. These terms of reference may be added to, varied or amended from time and time.

4. The Commission shall submit interim reports and recommendations to the President each month prior to the final report being presented to the President. The Commission shall complete its work within a period of four (4)months from date hereof and must submit its final report to the President within a period of one (1) month after the date on which the Commission completes its work.

5. The Commission shall where appropriate, refer any matter for prosecution, further investigation or the convening of a separate enquiry to the appropriate law enforcement agency, government department or regulator regarding the conduct of a certain person/s.

6. Regulations will be made in terms of the Commissions Act, 1947 and shall apply to the Commission to enable the Commission to conduct its work and investigation in a meaningful and proper way and to facilitate the gathering of evidence by conferring on the Commission such powers as are necessary, including the power to enter and search premises, secure the attendance of witnesses and compel the production of documents.

Reply received: April 2013

PARLIAMENTARY QUESTION NO.: 557

557. Adv. A de W Alberts (FF Plus) to ask the Minister of Justice and Constitutional

Development:

(1) Whether he has been informed (a) that the Midvaal local authority has ignored the findings and instructions in the Public Prosecutor's report on Midvaal, in which significant irregularities in the Midvaal local authority were uncovered; (b) about the reappointment of the legal firm that was identified by the Public Prosecutor as one of the sources of irregularities in the local council and (c) about the alleged continued intimidation of the whistle-blowers; if so, in each case,

(2) whether he is contemplating any steps in this regard; if so, what do these steps entail; if not,

(3) whether he intends to conduct further investigations in this regard; if not, what is the position in this regard; if so, what are the relevant details?

REPLY:-

1. I wish to inform the Honourable Member that, this matter relates to a Public Protector's report. As it relates to alleged irregularities in a local authority. I would recommend that the question be referred to the Minister of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs.

Reply received: April 2013

PARLIAMENTARY QUESTION NO.:438

438. Ms M Smuts (DA) to ask the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development:

(1) Was the 2013 almanac which was printed for distribution and used in courtrooms and the offices of presiding officers, prosecutors and court officials discovered to be incorrect with regard to the (a) days and (b) dates for February; if so,

(2) was the almanac replaced by a new, corrected almanac;

(3) (a) what did the printing and distribution of the new almanac cost, (b) what amount was expended on the first almanac, (c)(i) who was responsible for the mistake and,

(ii) what disciplinary steps were taken against the persons who were responsible and (d) how many court dates were erroneously set and then reported to court managers or presiding judicial officers;

(4) what (a) size and (b) grammar of (i) paper, (ii) ink colours and (iii) metal strip supports were used for the (aa) first almanac and (bb) second almanac:

(5) did his department check that the (a) days of the week and (b) dates for the other months of 2013 were correct before printing the new almanac?

REPLY: - I wish to inform the Honourable Member that, yes, the calendar days were indicated incorrectly for February 2013 on the 2012 wall calendar. However, the 2013 wall calendar contains the correct format for February 2013. Thus the incorrect calendar was not replaced with a reprint. The new 2013 wall calendar was distributed as scheduled from December 2012.

The Judiciary was supported by providing them with 2013 Diaries that were ordered and dispatched in July 2012 already, to enable court rolls to be placed in advance; no cost incurred as there was no need to reprint and no reprint was done.

An official at Corporate Services indicated on 12 November 2012 that she had not correctly checked the proofs, as she was under pressure. The matter was investigated and the official was warned verbally.

The Diaries for 2013 court roll placements were already available with the correct dates for February 2013 and since the standard annual calendar specifications are utilized there were no additional costs incurred for any re-printing; and the current full 2013 wall calendar is correct.

Reply received: April 2013

QUESTION FOR WRITTEN REPLY

PARLIAMENTARY QUESTION NO.: 403

403. Mr P F Smith (IFP) to ask the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development:

What is the status of cases regarding a number of failed investment schemes (details furnished) which the Ombud for Financial Service Providers (name furnished) claims have been reported by her office to the National Director of Public prosecutions without any perpetrators being prosecuted?

REPLY:

Sharemax Investments Scheme is under investigation.. The National Prosecuting Authority is busy with other cases, of the following failed investments schemes: Chinza Holdings; Tannenbaum; Westwood Brokers; De Beer; Winand; Mostert; Porritt; Westside Project; State versus Da Silva; State versus Martin Visagie and 4 Others; State versus David Molebane and 1 Other. In total, seven investments schemes are still under investigation by the Hawks, including Sharemax, and also five investments schemes are currently on the court roll handled by the Special Commercial Crime Unit in Pretoria.

The Special Commercial Crime Unit Johannesburg office is currently dealing with the Leaderguard investment scheme case. Some of the suspects in the matter have already been found guilty in Mauritius

Reply received: April 2013

PARLIAMENTARY QUESTION NO.: 362

Mrs. D. A. Schäfer (DA) to ask the Minister of Justice and Constitutional

Development:

(1) How many cases of (a) drunk driving and (b) driving with the blood alcohol level exceeding the prescribed permissible maximum have been (i) received by the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) from the SA Police Service (SAPS) for prosecution and (ii) prosecuted in each province;

(2) In respect of those prosecuted, how many resulted in a conviction in each case?

REPLY:-

For the period 1 April 2012 to December 2012, a total of (i) 19705 new drunk driving cases were registered by all the provinces. During the same period a total (ii) 8452 drunken driving cases were prosecuted.

For the period 1 April 2012 to December 2012, out of a total of 8452 prosecuted cases, 7747 drunken driving cases resulted in a conviction.

Reply received: April 2013

PARLIAMENTARY QUESTION NO.: 300

DATE OF QUESTION: 01 MARCH 2013

300. Mrs M Wenger (DA) to ask the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development:

Whether, with reference to his replies to questions (a) 100 on 6 March 2012 and (b) 2475 on 9 October 2012, the prosecutor has concluded the review of the (i) documents and (ii) dockets; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details?

REPLY:

I wish to inform the Honourable Member that, no, the prosecutor has not, concluded the review as yet. The Acting Director of Public Prosecution in Kwazulu-Natal has reported that he is still busy with the documents, transcripts and dockets in INCHANGA CAS 32/06/2011(Manganese case) and INCHANGA CAS 59/02/2008 (Explosion case).

The investigations are complex, which are borne out by the detailed instructions the prosecutor has given in the cases concerned. The prosecutor has indicated that he is unable to make a decision until he has received all of the information and statements required.

Reply received: April 2013

PARLIAMENTARY QUESTION NO.: 261

DATE OF QUESTION: 01 MARCH 2013

261. Mr J B Sibanyoni (ANC) to ask the Minister of Justice and Constitutional

Development:

(1) What is the annual percentage of cases that were withdrawn by prosecutors in (a) 2010, (b) 2011 and (c) 2012 that related to (i) violence against women and children and (ii) violent protest marches;

(2) how soon does he anticipate law enforcement agencies will take action against perpetrators of crime during protest marches;

(3) (a) what percentage of cases that were withdrawn by prosecutors in (i) 2010, (ii) 2011 and (iii) 2012 related to sexual offences and (b) how soon does he anticipate Specialised Sexual Offences Courts will be revived?

REPLY:

I wish to inform the Honourable Minister that, relating to the annual percentage of withdrawn cases, the National Prosecuting Authority is not in a position to give statistics in terms of percentages for specific crimes because the information kept by the NPA (National Prosecuting Authority) is at a summary level and not on a crime type level.

I also wish to bring under the Honourable Member's attention that our law enforcement agencies deal with each individual protest march as required. If needed, or when possible, arrests are immediately effected against perpetrators of crime during such protest incidents. Other arrests may follow later after further investigations or when circumstances so permit.

As of 1 April 2011 to March 2012 and from April 2012 to January 2013 the

statistics are as follows:

· The total number of matters reported at the 52 Thuthuzela Court Centres (TCC) sites for the 2011/12 financial year is 28 557, with a withdrawal rate of 3%.

· Number of cases finalised with a verdict = 2 140, within an average conviction rate = 60.7%

· Withdrawal rate = 3%, total number of matters reported since April 2012 until January 2013 at 51 sites.

· Number of cases finalised with a verdict = 1886, within an average conviction rate = 60.3%

As indicated above it must be noted that the statistics given here are in respect of matters reported at the Thuthuzela Court Centres (TCC) sites only and do not include cases reported elsewhere.

I will make an announcement on the re-establishment of the Sexual Offences Courts, shortly.

Reply received: April 2013

PARLIAMENTARY QUESTION NO.: 259

DATE OF QUESTION: 1 MARCH 2013

259. Mr J B Sibanyoni (ANC) to ask the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development:

(1) Whether, since the disbandment of cross-boundary municipalities in 2008, there are any (a) farms or portions thereof, (b) buildings and (c) any other fixed assets that must still be transferred from one municipality in a province to another municipality in another province (details furnished); if not, what is the position in this regard; if so, what are the relevant details;

(2) whether the Office of the State Attorney has taken any steps to transfer and register farm 610 J R Ekangala as part of the Tshwane municipal area in Gauteng; if not, why not; if so, (a) to what extent has the Office of the State Attorney taken steps in this regard and (b) how long will it take to complete the process of transferring the farm to Gauteng? NW313E

Reply:

I wish to inform the Honourable Member that, the State Attorney is only responsible for the transfer of property upon instruction from State Departments and not Municipalities. The function of vesting of state owned fixed assets in line with the new municipalities, rests with the Department of Public Works as provided for in the Land Administration Act of 1995. In the case of the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development, the Department has the responsibility to align the magisterial jurisdiction in line with that of the new municipal boundaries. This process does not require transfer of fixed assets from one municipality or provinces to the other.

Yes, the office of State Attorney, has taken steps to transfer the farm concerned,

and the Department of Agriculture, Rural Development and Land Administration

Mpumalanga Provincial Government has contacted the Office of the State

Attorney: Pretoria to arrange a meeting in order to obtain resolutions on the

way forward.

The transfer process of the property in question is currently held in abeyance, pending further instructions from the client department. Once all documents are received and processed, the transfer after lodgement can take between 14-21 days for transfer to be effected.

Reply received: April 2013

PARLIAMENTARY QUESTION NO.:258

DATE OF QUESTION:1 MARCH 2013

258. Mr J B Sibanyoni (ANC) to ask the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development:

(1) Whether he intends to continue the process of establishing small claims courts within easy access of the poor and indigent persons, especially those residing in the rural areas; if not, why not; if so, to what extent have the small claims courts been established in rural as opposed to urban areas;

(2) whether he is using any means and mechanisms to raise community awareness about these courts; if not, why not; if so, to what extent are community radio services used to educate rural communities about the (a) existence and (b) role of the small claims courts in their areas?

REPLY:-

I wish to inform the Honourable Member that,yes I do,intend to continue the process of establishing Small Claims Courts within easy access of poor and indigent persons, especially those residing in the rural areas. This is a strategic approach we embarked on several years ago and it has been very successful in extending access to justice to all the people in South Africa – even those in remote rural areas.

It should also be noted that my Department aims to establish at least one Small Claims Court in each of the 387 magisterial districts countrywide. We are making relatively good progress in this regard and currently already have 263 established and functioning Small Claims Courts country-wide. In addition, the establishment of new Small Claims Courts for Elliot (Eastern Cape) and Ngotshe (Kwazulu-Natal) has recently been approved by the Deputy Minister and he is currently considering establishments for Madikwe (North West), Middledrift (Eastern Cape) and Msinga (Kwazulu-Natal). All of these areas are of a rural nature.Approximately 77% of the current established Small Claims Courts are in rural areas.

In order to provide a proper perspective of the establishment of rural Small Claims Courts, I have pleasure in reporting back that we have been focusing on the more rural areas as follows:

26 new Small Claims Courts were established from 1 April 2010 to 31 March 2011 at the following areas:

Lindley (Free State), Daveyton (Gauteng), Mapulaneng (MP), Pilgrim's Rest (Mpumalanga), Wonderboom (Gauteng), Delmas (Mpumalanga), Hermanus (Western Cape) and Alexandra (Gauteng), Balfour (Mpumalanga), Jacobsdal (Free State), Barkly West (Northern Cape), Nqamakwe(Eastern Cape), Sutherland (Northern Cape), Tembisa(Gauteng), Amersfoort (Mpumalanga), Bethulie(Free State), Smithfield (Free State), Underberg (Kwazulu-Natal), Alexandria (Eastern Cape), Hlabisa(Kwazulu-Natal), Khayelitsha(Western Cape), Nsikazi (Mpumalanga), White River (Mpumalanga), Kathu (Northern Cape), ThabaNchu(Free Sate) and Frankfort (Free State).

23 new Small Claims Courts were established from 1 April 2011 to 31 March 2012 in the following areas:

Cathcart (Eastern Cape), Kenhardt (Northern Cape), Botshabelo (Free State), Vrede (Free State), Nongoma (Kwazulu-Natal), Roodepoort (Gauteng), Ingwavuma (Kwazulu-Natal), Swartruggens (North-West), Ubombo (Kwazulu-Natal), Willowmore (Eastern Cape), Edenburg (Free Sate), Ganyesa (North-West), Randfontein (Gauteng), WatervalBoven (Mpumalanga), Bloemhof (North West), Mamelodi (Gauteng), Eerstehoek (Mpumalanga), Mount Fletcher (Eastern Cape), Heidelberg (Gauteng), Matatiele (Eastern Cape), Tshitale (Limpopo), Cala (Eastern Cape) and Marquard (Free Sate).

As can be seen from the names above the focus is very much on smaller and rural areas in line with our strategic approach in this regard.

Also in line with this, a further 16 new Small Claims Courts have been established from 1 April 2012 in the following areas:

Victoria East (Eastern Cape), Koster (North West), Fort Beaufort (Eastern Cape), Westonaria (Gauteng), Motherwell (Eastern Cape), Ntuzuma (Kwazulu-Natal), Glencoe (Kwazulu-Natal), Brandfort (Free State)Alfred (Kwazulu-Natal), Northam (Limpopo), Kirkwood (Eastern Cape), Carolina (Mpumalanga), Aberdeen (Eastern Cape), Jagersfontein (Free State), Wakkerstroom (Mpumalanga) and Malamulele (Limpopo).

I wish to inform the Honourable Member that yes, we are indeed raising community awareness about these courts. We view this as very important in order to educate the public and especially the rural communities about both the existence and the role of the Small Claims Courts in their areas. We are using engagement with all relevant role players through community outreach activities, imbizos and similar events at local level in conjunction with local authorities, as well as media and community radio services to educate the public in this regard about the Small Claims Courts and how they can assist in providing access to certain civil matters of up to R12 000.

Reply received: March 2013

QUESTION 168 FOR WRITTEN REPLY

PARLIAMENTARY QUESTION NO.: 168

168. Mrs. J D Kilian (Cope) to ask the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development:

(1) (a) What is the nature and extent of the short- and medium-term cash flow and

financial challenges faced by the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) and (b) why is the NPA unable to function and manage its affairs within the scope of its allocated budget;

(2) how do the specified financial challenges impact on the efficacy of the NPA in

relation to (a) day-to-day operational activities, (b) appointment of additional

prosecutors, (c) long-term viability and (d) independence;

(3) what (a) short- and (b) medium-term steps does he intend to take to ensure the

(i) efficacy and (ii) independence of the NPA?

REPLY:-

Financial challenges of the NPA

I wish to inform the Honourable Member that, indeed, the National Prosecuting Authority faces financial challenges. Amongst others, the Compensation of Employees expenditure is under severe pressure and R 92 million overspending is anticipated as at the end of the financial year. This overspending is based on the compensation of employees salary bill for January 2013 (R192 million) projected for the remainder of the financial year.

The NPA has implemented cost saving measures and centralised the budget in order to ensure that forced savings amounting to R 92 million is generated in other economic classifications to defray the overspending in the Compensation of Employees. The budget vs. expenditure is currently managed on a daily basis.

It is essential that vital services continue within the available budget and that the courts continue to operate.

The budget situation, based on the current projections, will not improve in the 2013/14 financial year and the new MTEF allocation. The total shortfall in Compensation of Employees for the existing establishment in 2013/14 is R100 million, which comprises of R 25 million establishment shortfall, R 25 million performance bonuses and R 50 million for the interest payable on the 2005 job evaluation court judgment.

Why is the NPA unable to function and manage its affairs within the scope of its allocated budget?

The NPA is able to function and manage its affairs within the scope of the allocated budget. The implementation of the 2005 Job Evaluation court judgment (R55 million) and the higher than anticipated carry through cost of the occupational specific dispensation had a major impact on the overall budget shortfall within compensation of employees. In order to defray this overspending it was necessary to curb expenditure within other areas of the budget allocations such as communications (decrease in limits of cellphone usage), limitation of the use of outside venues and facilities, training, travelling and subsistence as well as the procurement of machinery and equipment.

How does the specified financial challenges impact on the efficacy of the NPA in day to day operational activities

The aim of the implementation of the cost saving measures is to ensure that the core functions of the NPA do not suffer and that the day to day operations at court level are not affected. The performance indicators as set out in the 2012/13 Annual Plan will not be affected by the current financial status of the NPA.

The baseline reductions by National Treasury (R12, 5 million in 2014/15 and R 45 million in 2015/16) as well as the carry through shortfall on compensation will have an impact on the performance indicators as set out in the ENE.

The NPA anticipates that the impact of the constraints will result in the NPA being unable to fulfill its Constitutional mandate at all newly established courts as there are no funds available for additional staff that will be required to be recruited.

The NPA has already suspended its aspirant prosecutor programme which is a critical recruitment tool as well as the strategy of the NPA to contribute towards job creation in the economy.

Appointment of additional prosecutors

The NPA will not be in a position to appoint any additional staff within the MTEF period with the exception of Thuthuzela Care Centres [TCC] posts due to additional funding received for the increase in capacity within the Specialised Prosecutions sub-programme. The aspirant prosecutor programme intake has been cancelled for the current financial year and will be reconsidered in the 2013/14 financial year should Safety and Security Sector Education and Training Authority [SASSETA] financial assistance materialize.

Long term viability

The long term viability of the NPA is not affected by the current costs saving measures.

The NPA has reached optimal efficiency within Goods and Services and no further cost saving measures can be introduced without impacting on service delivery. The average ratio for Compensation of Employees and Others is 80:20 and further virement from Goods and Services to Compensation of Employees will not be sustainable.

Independence:

The prosecutorial independence of the NPA is not affected by the financial constraints.

What short term steps does the Minister intend to take to ensure the efficacy and independence of the NPA.

The Minister supports the NPA's cost saving measures in order to ensure that no unauthorised and irregular expenditure occurs in the current financial year. A request for additional funding as part of the MTEF process will also be supported taking cognisance of the economic environment and the call by the President and National Treasury to focus on service delivery.

What medium term steps does the Minister intend to take to ensure the efficacy and independence of the NPA?

As indicated above the NPA's independence is not affected by the financial constraints and therefore there are no special interventions to ensure the independence of the NPA.

Reply received: March 2013

PARLIAMENTARY QUESTION NO.: 147

147. Mrs D ASchäfer (DA) to ask the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development:

(1) How many legal matters were dealt with by his department (a) in the (i) 2009-10, (ii) 2010-11 and (iii) 2011-12 financial years and (b) during the period 1 April 2012 up to the latest specified date for which information is available;

(2) a) how many of the specified legal matters were dealt with by (i) the State Attorney and (ii) private attorneys during the specified periods and (b) what are the reasons why his department was not represented by the State Attorney in each specified case;

(3) what total amounts were paid by his department to (a) the State Attorney and (b) private attorneys during the specified periods?

REPLY:

I wish to inform the Honourable Member that, the total legal matters that were handled by my Department from 2009 to 2013 is 52 626. This total includes legal matters referred to as civil litigation matters, which are comprised of civil claims and motions. It should be noted that, given the manner in which litigation statistics are compiled, it is not possible to strictly categorise the number of litigation matters according to the respective financial years, as some matters run over several financial years while others (particularly motions), are often finalised within weeks or months. All matters dealt with by the Department on behalf of all State Departments are illustrated in the table below:

NUMBERING

FINANCIAL YEAR

LITIGATION CASES

DEEDS

GRAND TOTAL

TOTAL PAID (R)

1) (a) (i)

01/04/2009 - 31/03/2010

8102

5699

13801

18 436 594

(1) (a) (ii)

01/04/2010 - 31/03/2011

7950

4965

12915

23 553 598

(1) (a) (iii)

01/04/2011 - 31/03/2012

9257

4321

13578

28 428 373

(1) (b)

01/04/2012 - 20/02/2013

8570

3762

12332

34 089 986

TOTAL

104 508 551

The total number of cases is combined for both State Attorneys and private attorneys. The Department's current systems are unable to currently differentiate between the number of matters handled by the State Attorney and private attorneys. The differentiation is only captured when costs and disbursements are paid by the State Attorney. Going forward, measures will be put in place to capture such differentiation in future.

Save for the justified exceptions mentioned below, the Department exclusively instructs the State Attorney in all civil litigation matters. The only exceptions are instances where the State Attorney is legally precluded by a conflict of interests to act on behalf of the Department and instances that require specialization (i.e.: where there exists no expertise within the Office of the State Attorney).

No additional amounts are paid to State Attorneys, as they are in the employ of the State. The total amount paid to private attorneys which includes correspondent attorneys for the period concerned amounts to R104 508 551. As some of these attorneys were appointed to act on behalf of client Departments, the monies concerned, are being claimed back from the relevant Government Departments' concerned.

Reply received: March 2013

PARLIAMENTARY QUESTION NO.: 114

114. Mr. J. R. B. Lorimer (DA) to ask the Minister of Justice and Constitutional

Development:

(1) Whether (a) his department and (b) any entities reporting to it paid any bonuses to senior officials in December 2012; if so, in each specified case, (i) to whom and

(ii) what amount was paid;

(2) whether the specified bonuses were performance-based; if not, what is the

justification for each bonus; if so, in each case, from which budget was the performance bonuses paid;

(3) whether, in each case, (a) a performance agreement was signed with the official and

(b) regular performance assessments were conducted; if not, why not, in each case; if so, what are the relevant details in each case?

REPLY:

I wish to respond to the Honourable Member that, yes, last year the Department paid performance bonuses to some of the officials indicated below:

- 01 Deputy Director-General

- 10 Chief Directors

- 39 Directors

- 50 SMS members were paid performance bonuses in 2012. All had entered into performance agreements for the said years. Their performance reports were assessed by their supervisors. Their assessments were moderated, and were found to be worthy of a performance bonus (One DDG was assessed by the former DG for 2008/09, and the current DG for 2009/10 and 2010/11 performance years. However, there are no records of moderation of his assessments. The current DG recommended and approved payment of performance bonuses to the DDG).

A total amount of R 2 737 895. 00 was paid during 2012 in respect of SMS members' performance bonuses.

With regard to the National Prosecution Authority,

The performance bonus payment was processed in December 2012. This was to the acting CEO, appointed permanently as Senior Deputy Director of Public Prosecution (Level 14). The amount was R51 882.60. An additional ten (10) service bonuses were paid to other officials with the amount totaling R516 934. 00.

The bonus paid to the Acting Chief Executive Officer: NPA was performance based. The service bonuses paid to the rest of the officials were not performance based but is part of the remuneration package where officials elect to have part of the package structured to form annual service bonus.

Both types of bonuses are paid from the compensation budget. In the case of the performance bonus the NPA is obliged by the Public Service Regulation to budget 1.5% of the Remuneration budget for performance bonus and the payment was made from this budget.

In the one case of the performance bonus, a performance agreement was signed between the Director General and the Acting Chief Executive Officer. This is not applicable for service bonuses.

The SMS dispensation requires members to have two formal performance reviews. The acting CEO completed performance reviews which were submitted to the Director- General. A meeting between the Director General and the acting CEO took place to conduct the review. For the rest, service bonuses do not require performances reviews.

The Special Investigating Unit did not pay any bonuses in December 2012.

With regard to Legal Aid SA

Performance bonuses were paid in accordance with its Performance Management Policy to all qualifying staff members (i.e. those who achieved performance of over 80%) in August 2012 in respect of performance for the financial year ending 31 March 2012. The qualifying staff members included 24 senior officials.

The classification of these 24 senior officials is as follows:

01 - Chief Executive Officer (Level 16);

11 - National Executives (Level 14 to Level 15);

06 - Regional Executives (Level 14); and

06 - Directors (Level 13)

Reply received: March 2013

QUESTION FOR WRITTEN REPLY

PARLIAMENTARY QUESTION NO.: 81

81. Mr D C Smiles (DA) to ask the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development:

(a) How many tickets did (i) his department and (ii) any of its entities purchase to attend business breakfasts hosted by a certain newspaper (name furnished) (aa) in the (aaa) 2010-11 and (bbb) 2011-12 financial years and (bb) during the period 1 April 2012 up to the latest specified date for which information is available and (b) what was the total cost in each case?

REPLY:

I wish to inform the Honourable Member that the Department attended one Business Breakfast meeting. The Department purchased twelve (12) tables for which in total seated 120 invitees, at the cost of R85 568.40, of which all were the Justice stakeholders.

Reply received: March 2013

PARLIAMENTARY QUESTION NO.: 38

38. Mrs D. A. Schäfer (DA) to ask the Minister of Justice and Constitutional

Development:

(1) Whether, with reference to his reply to question 3327 on 11 December 2012, he has received the revised model regarding sexual offences courts from the task team; if not, when is the report expected; if so, what are the recommendations regarding the reinstitution of sexual offences courts;

(2) whether he intends to implement the recommendations of the task team; if not, why not; if so, what is the time frame for the implementation of the recommendations?

Reply:

(1) I wish to inform the Honourable Minister that, yes, in December 2012, I received the Revised Sexual Offences Courts Model, as part of the report submitted by the Task Team, and yes, I intend to implement the recommendations in phases based on the readiness of infrastructure and resources on the ground to improve the delivery of access to efficient and effective justice services.