Justice & Correctional Services A

2015-03-17

Reply received: May 2015

PARLIAMENTARY QUESTION NO: 1451

DATE OF QUESTION: 17 APRIL 2015

DATE OF SUBMISSION: 30 APRIL 2015

1451. Mr S C Motau (DA) to ask the Minister of Justice and Correctional Services:

(a) How many invoices from private contractors to his department currently remain unpaid for longer than 30 days and (b) in each case, what (i) are the details of the (aa) contractor and (bb) services provided and (ii) what is the (aa) date of the invoices and (bb) reasons why the invoice was not paid within 30 days? NW1664E

Department of Justice and Constitutional Development reply

(a) Number of invoices	(b)(i)(aa) Details of the contractor	(b)(i)(bb) Services rendered	(b)(ii)(aa) Date of the invoice	(b)(ii)(bb) Reasons why the invoice was not paid within 30 days
42	IAfrica	Transcription Services	Details are attached	Details are attached
15	Sneller	Transcription Services	Details are attached	Details are attached
42	Lepelle Office Supplies Cc	Transcription Services	Details are attached	Details are attached
2	Ikamva Veritas Transcription	Transcription Services	Details are attached	Details are attached
42	Bytes	Rental of photocopiers	Details are attached	Details are attached
35	Konica Minolta	Rental of photocopiers	Details are attached	Details are attached
6	Government Printers	Stationary	Details are attached	Details are attached
1	Blue Line Office Supplies	Stationery	Details are attached	Details are attached
1	Fohla Security	Security Services	Details are attached	Details are attached
1	BTC	Stationery	Details are attached	Details are attached
2	Bucan Office Equipment	Office Equipment	Details are attached	Details are attached
1	Business images	Stationery	Details are attached	Details are attached
23	Crossroads distribution	Courier Services	Details are attached	Details are attached
1	Docufile	Document storage	Details are attached	Details are attached
2	Durban Tracing Agency	Tracing services	Details are attached	Details are attached
3	Earlyworks	Stationery	Details are attached	Details are attached
10	Frama (Pty) Ltd	Franking Services	Details are attached	Details are attached
1	Lexis Nexis	Library books	Details are attached	Details are attached
9	Libri Boekwinkel	Library books	Details are attached	Details are attached
5	Molecular Diagnosis Services	Blood tests (paternity)	Details are attached	Details are attached
1	Nads Stationers	Stationery	Details are attached	Details are attached
1	Palama	Training	Details are attached	Details are attached
1	Reflecto Signs	Signage	Details are attached	Details are attached

(a) Number of invoices

(b)(i)(aa)

Details of the contractor

(b)(i)(bb)

Services rendered

(b)(ii)(aa)

Date of the invoice

(b)(ii)(bb)

Reasons why the invoice was not paid within 30 days

IAfrica

Transcription Services

Details are attached

Sneller

Transcription Services

Details are attached

Lepelle Office Supplies Cc

Transcription Services

Details are attached

Ikamva Veritas Transcription

Transcription Services

Details are attached

Bytes

Rental of photocopiers

Details are attached

Konica Minolta

Rental of photocopiers

Details are attached

Government Printers

Stationary

Details are attached

Blue Line Office Supplies

Stationery

Details are attached

Fohla Security

Security Services

Details are attached

BTC

Stationery

Details are attached

Bucan Office Equipment

Office Equipment

Details are attached

Business images

Stationery

Details are attached

Crossroads distribution

Courier Services

Details are attached

Docufile

Document storage

Details are attached

Durban Tracing Agency

Tracing services

Details are attached

Earlyworks

Stationery

Details are attached

Frama (Pty) Ltd

Franking Services

Details are attached

Lexis Nexis

Library books

Details are attached

Libri Boekwinkel

Library books

Details are attached

Molecular Diagnosis Services

Blood tests (paternity)

Details are attached

Nads Stationers

Stationery

Details are attached

Palama

Training

Details are attached

Reflecto Signs

Signage

Details are attached

See the link for Attached documents:

/files/RNW1451A-150430.xlsx
/files/RNW1451B-150430.xlsx
/files/RNW1451C-150430.xlsx
/files/RNw1451D-150430.xlsx

Office of the Chief Justice and Judicial Administration reply

The Office of the Chief Justice received 1465 invoices from Daba Daba Global Travel cc relating to travel and accommodation services of which 101 invoices have not been paid within 30 days. The reason for non-payment within 30 days is due to disputes with the said invoices as some do not correspond with the approved VA 26 forms whilst others contain tariffs which are not part of the agreed pricing. The supplier has indicated that capacity at their finance offices was increased to ensure correct invoicing. The information is reflected below in more detail:

Detail of contractor	Detail of the services provided	Date of invoice	Reason for not paying in 30 days
Daba Daba Global Travel cc	Travel Services	2015/02/26	Dispute with invoice
Daba Daba Global Travel cc	Travel Services	2015/02/26	Dispute with invoice
Daba Daba Global Travel cc	Travel Services	2015/02/26	Dispute with invoice
Daba Daba Global Travel cc	Travel Services	2015/02/26	Dispute with invoice
Daba Daba Global Travel cc	Travel Services	2015/02/26	Dispute with invoice
Daba Daba Global Travel cc	Travel Services	2015/02/26	Dispute with invoice
Daba Daba Global Travel cc	Travel Services	2015/02/26	Dispute with invoice
Daba Daba Global Travel cc	Travel Services	2015/02/26	Dispute with invoice
Daba Daba Global Travel cc	Travel Services	2015/02/26	Dispute with invoice
Daba Daba Global Travel cc	Travel Services	2015/02/26	Dispute with invoice
Daba Daba Global Travel cc	Travel Services	2015/02/26	Dispute with invoice
Daba Daba Global Travel cc	Travel Services	2015/02/26	Dispute with invoice
Daba Daba Global Travel cc	Travel Services	2015/02/26	Dispute with invoice
Daba Daba Global Travel cc	Travel Services	2015/02/26	Dispute with invoice
Daba Daba Global Travel cc	Travel Services	2015/02/26	Dispute with invoice
Daba Daba Global Travel cc	Travel Services	2015/02/26	Dispute with invoice
Daba Daba Global Travel cc	Travel Services	2015/02/26	Dispute with invoice
Daba Daba Global Travel cc	Travel Services	2015/02/26	Dispute with invoice
Daba Daba Global Travel cc	Travel Services	2015/02/26	Dispute with invoice
Daba Daba Global Travel cc	Travel Services	2015/02/26	Dispute with invoice
Daba Daba Global Travel cc	Travel Services	2015/02/26	Dispute with invoice
Daba Daba Global Travel cc	Travel Services	2015/02/26	Dispute with invoice
Daba Daba Global Travel cc	Travel Services	2015/02/26	Dispute with invoice
Daba Daba Global Travel cc	Travel Services	2015/02/26	Dispute with invoice
Daba Daba Global Travel cc	Travel Services	2015/02/26	Dispute with invoice
Daba Daba Global Travel cc	Travel Services	2015/02/26	Dispute with invoice
Daba Daba Global Travel cc	Travel Services	2015/02/26	Dispute with invoice
Daba Daba Global Travel cc	Travel Services	2015/02/26	Dispute with invoice
Daba Daba Global Travel cc	Travel Services	2015/02/26	Dispute with invoice
Daba Daba Global Travel cc	Travel Services	2015/02/26	Dispute with invoice
Daba Daba Global Travel cc	Travel Services	2015/02/26	Dispute with invoice
Daba Daba Global Travel cc	Travel Services	2015/02/26	Dispute with invoice
Daba Daba Global Travel cc	Travel Services	2015/02/26	Dispute with invoice
Daba Daba Global Travel cc	Travel Services	2015/02/26	Dispute with invoice
Daba Daba Global Travel cc	Travel Services	2015/02/26	Dispute with invoice
Daba Daba Global Travel cc	Travel Services	2015/02/26	Dispute with invoice
Daba Daba Global Travel cc	Travel Services	2015/02/26	Dispute with invoice
Daba Daba Global Travel cc	Travel Services	2015/02/26	Dispute with invoice
Daba Daba Global Travel cc	Travel Services	2015/02/26	Dispute with invoice
Daba Daba Global Travel cc	Travel Services	2015/02/26	Dispute with invoice
Daba Daba Global Travel cc	Travel Services	2015/02/26	Dispute with invoice
Daba Daba Global Travel cc	Travel Services	2015/02/26	Dispute with invoice
Daba Daba Global Travel cc	Travel Services	2015/02/26	Dispute with invoice
Daba Daba Global Travel cc	Travel Services	2015/02/26	Dispute with invoice
Daba Daba Global Travel cc	Travel Services	2015/02/26	Dispute with invoice
Daba Daba Global Travel cc	Travel Services	2015/02/26	Dispute with invoice
Daba Daba Global Travel cc	Travel Services	2015/02/26	Dispute with invoice
Daba Daba Global Travel cc	Travel Services	2015/02/26	Dispute with invoice
Daba Daba Global Travel cc	Travel Services	2015/02/26	Dispute with invoice
Daba Daba Global Travel cc	Travel Services	2015/02/26	Dispute with invoice
Daba Daba Global Travel cc	Travel Services	2015/02/26	Dispute with invoice
Daba Daba Global Travel cc	Travel Services	2015/02/26	Dispute with invoice
Daba Daba Global Travel cc	Travel Services	2015/02/26	Dispute with invoice
Daba Daba Global Travel cc	Travel Services	2015/02/26	Dispute with invoice
Daba Daba Global Travel cc	Travel Services	2015/02/26	Dispute with invoice
Daba Daba Global Travel cc	Travel Services	2015/02/26	Dispute with invoice
Daba Daba Global Travel cc	Travel Services	2015/02/26	Dispute with invoice
Daba Daba Global Travel cc	Travel Services	2015/02/26	Dispute with invoice
Daba Daba Global Travel cc	Travel Services	2015/02/26	Dispute with invoice
Daba Daba Global Travel cc	Travel Services	2015/02/25	Dispute with invoice
Daba Daba Global Travel cc	Travel Services	2015/02/25	Dispute with invoice
Daba Daba Global Travel cc	Travel Services	2015/02/25	Dispute with invoice
Daba Daba Global Travel cc	Travel Services	2015/02/25	Dispute with invoice
Daba Daba Global Travel cc	Travel Services	2015/02/24	Dispute with invoice
Daba Daba Global Travel cc	Travel Services	2015/02/24	Dispute with invoice
Daba Daba Global Travel cc	Travel Services	2015/02/24	Dispute with invoice
Daba Daba Global Travel cc	Travel Services	2015/02/24	Dispute with invoice
Daba Daba Global Travel cc	Travel Services	2015/02/23	Dispute with invoice
Daba Daba Global Travel cc	Travel Services	2015/02/20	Dispute with invoice
Daba Daba Global Travel cc	Travel Services	2015/02/20	Dispute with invoice
Daba Daba Global Travel cc	Travel Services	2015/02/20	Dispute with invoice
Daba Daba Global Travel cc	Travel Services	2015/02/20	Dispute with invoice
Daba Daba Global Travel cc	Travel Services	2015/02/20	Dispute with invoice
Daba Daba Global Travel cc	Travel Services	2015/02/20	Dispute with invoice
Daba Daba Global Travel cc	Travel Services	2015/02/20	Dispute with invoice
Daba Daba Global Travel cc	Travel Services	2015/02/20	Dispute with invoice
Daba Daba Global Travel cc	Travel Services	2015/02/19	Dispute with invoice
Daba Daba Global Travel cc	Travel Services	2015/02/19	Dispute with invoice
Daba Daba Global Travel cc	Travel Services	2015/02/19	Dispute with invoice
Daba Daba Global Travel cc	Travel Services	2015/02/19	Dispute with invoice
Daba Daba Global Travel cc	Travel Services	2015/02/19	Dispute with invoice
Daba Daba Global Travel cc	Travel Services	2015/02/16	Dispute with invoice
Daba Daba Global Travel cc	Travel Services	2015/02/13	Dispute with invoice
Daba Daba Global Travel cc	Travel Services	2015/02/13	Dispute with invoice
Daba Daba Global Travel cc	Travel Services	2015/02/13	Dispute with invoice
Daba Daba Global Travel cc	Travel Services	2015/02/13	Dispute with invoice
Daba Daba Global Travel cc	Travel Services	2015/02/12	Dispute with invoice
Daba Daba Global Travel cc	Travel Services	2015/02/12	Dispute with invoice
Daba Daba Global Travel cc	Travel Services	2015/02/11	Dispute with invoice
Daba Daba Global Travel cc	Travel Services	2015/02/11	Dispute with invoice
Daba Daba Global Travel cc	Travel Services	2015/02/10	Dispute with invoice
Daba Daba Global Travel cc	Travel Services	2015/02/09	Dispute with invoice
Daba Daba Global Travel cc	Travel Services	2015/02/09	Dispute with invoice
Daba Daba Global Travel cc	Travel Services	2015/02/09	Dispute with invoice
Daba Daba Global Travel cc	Travel Services	2015/02/09	Dispute with invoice
Daba Daba Global Travel cc	Travel Services	2015/02/09	Dispute with invoice
Daba Daba Global Travel cc	Travel Services	2015/02/09	Dispute with invoice
Daba Daba Global Travel cc	Travel Services	2015/02/09	Dispute with invoice
Daba Daba Global Travel cc	Travel Services	2015/02/09	Dispute with invoice
Daba Daba Global Travel cc	Travel Services	2015/02/06	Dispute with invoice
Daba Daba Global Travel cc	Travel Services	2015/02/06	Dispute with invoice

Reply received: May 2015

PARLIAMENTARY QUESTION NO.: 1415

DATE OF QUESTION: 17 APRIL 2015

DATE OF REPLY: 30 APRIL 2015

Mr A R McLoughlin (DA) to ask the Minister of Justice and Correctional Services:

Does his department have a Regulatory Burden Reduction Strategy in place; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details of the strategy? NW 1628E

REPLY:-

Department of Justice and Constitutional Development reply

No, the Department does not have a formal Regulatory Burden Reduction Strategy in place. The Honourable member is referred to the Hon Minister of Finance in this regard, who had indicated initially that the National Treasury has several plans in place to make it ‘easier to do business in South Africa’, which includes increasing investment in infrastructure and reducing the regulatory burdens for businesses, boosting trade with the rest of Africa and putting a number of industrial incentives in place.

The Department of Justice and Constitutional Development does not directly contribute to the cost of doing business in South Africa. However, if there is legislation to be developed to reduce the cost of doing business, the Legislation Development Branch of the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development, will assist in this regard if required.

With regards to lower courts (Magistrates’ Courts), the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development has Key Performance Indicators in its Annual Performance Plan, with regards to the following:

Key Performance Indicator 13.1: The percentage of requests for default judgments dealt with by the clerk of the court within 14 working days of receipt (district courts); and

Key Performance Indicator 13.2: The percentage of unopposed taxations processed within 14 working days from the date he matter is set down (district courts).

The above-mentioned Key Performance Indicators are meant to expedite civil cases and thereby reduce the burden of doing business.

All Magistrates’ Courts in South Africa, must furthermore have Small Claims Courts, where matters of R15 000 and less can be taken to court without an attorney representing these cases, which also assists in reducing the cost of doing business.

Office of the Chief Justice and Judicial Administration reply

Having studied the Guidelines for the implementation of the Regulatory Impact Analysis/Assessment process in South Africa which was commissioned by the Presidency, it is evident that the Office of the Chief Justice does not have a role to play in this regard. The Office of the Chief Justice therefore does not have a Regulatory Burden Reduction Strategy. The Regulatory Burden Reduction Strategy would in all likelihood be implemented by Departments playing a role in stimulating the economy, especially assisting small businesses. It is not foreseen that such a strategy will be developed by the Office of the Chief Justice as it does not relate to the mandate of the department.

Reply received: May 2015

PARLIAMENTARY QUESTION NO: 1381

DATE OF QUESTION: 17 APRIL 2015

DATE OF SUBMISSION: 30 APRIL 2015

Mr J H Steenhuisen (DA) to ask the Minister of Justice and Correctional Services:

(a) What number of (i) financial, (ii) forensic and/or (iii) other investigations that were commissioned by his department have been completed since 1 April 2013 and (b) in each case, what are the relevant details on the (i) investigation including a synopsis of the facts and findings of each case, (ii) persons or third parties responsible for each investigation, (iii) total cost to date of each investigation and (iv) appropriate steps taken against officials and third parties implicated of wrongdoing in the findings of the investigations? NW1593E

Draft reply

Department of Justice and Constitutional Development reply

First, let me assure the Honourable member that my Department and I regard any form of fraud, corruption and/or financial misconduct, in a very serious light.

All allegations relating to fraud, corruption and /or financial misconduct are referred to the Department’s Forensic Audit Directorate for investigation and reporting. The Forensic Audit Unit works very closely with the Human Resources Unit’s Labour Relations Directorate, who is in charge of managing disciplinary and misconduct matters relating to officials found to have contravened internal policies and procedures; the Chief Directorate: Law Enforcement, who enforces civil remedies against officials, such as ensuring monies are paid back where such officials have been found guilty of financial misconduct and/or fraud; and the South African Police Service, to whom criminal cases involving fraud and corruption are reported for investigation and eventual submission to the National Prosecuting Authority for the prosecution of such offences.

I do also however want to point out that not all public servants are corrupt and want to express my sincere gratitude to the Director General and all employees of the department that work very hard to ensure that we improve our systems of internal control on a continuous basis that result in unqualified audit opinions as previously reported to this house.

Regarding the specific questions asked, I have been informed that for the financial years 2013/2014 and 2014/2015, 406 cases were investigated, reported upon and forwarded for further departmental, civil and/or criminal actions.
(i) It would be very difficult for my Department to summarize and make a synopsis of each of the cases concerned, available within the time-frames stipulated to answer a Parliamentary Question.

(ii) It must be taken into consideration that the Forensic Audit Unit has a limited capacity, all of whom are busy with investigations and reports as I submit this answer.

(iii) and (iv) However, I am informed that the consolidated Report for the 2012/2013; 2013/2014 and 2014/2015 financial years, can be summarized as follows:

No	Province	Dismissals	Warnings and salary suspensions	Criminal cases- officials found guilty	Total losses
1.	Limpopo	14	2	0	R5 279 625.07
2.	Free State	5	1	0	R119 027.00
3.	North West	18	2	0	R3 977 450.85
4.	Mpumalanga	20	2	0	R3 104 628.00
5.	KwaZulu-Natal	5	2	1	R1 054 873.78
6.	Northern Cape	4	0	2	R113 750.00
7.	Eastern Cape	11	9	1	R919 755.00
8.	Western Cape	3	3	3	R1 346 780.00
9.	Gauteng	17	7	0	R6 714 500.00
10.	Master’s Office	6	0	0	R339 205.00
	TOTAL	103	28	7	R22 969 594.70

The detailed reports as received from the Forensic Audit Unit, are attached as Annexures A. B and C see the link: /files/RNW1381A-150430.xlsx

Even though the above-mentioned matters, are serious and are regarded as such as I will tolerate no fraud or corruption in the Department concerned, I lastly wish to put the matter into perspective departmentally. Please consider the R22.9 million against the following:

DOJ &CD Budget (excluding direct charges) handled in same period (i.e. 2012/13 – 2014/15) R33.8 billion.

Third Party Funds handled in the same period (i.e. 2012/13 -2014/15) receipts of R 6 billion.

Guardian Fund handled in the same period (i.e. 2012/13 -2014/15) receipts of R3.9 billion.

Not to belabor the point I will only make an example of the amounts of monies reported in terms of the Guardians’ Fund fraud cases for the last three financial years. The numbers below seem to indicate that the majority of the Departmental officials are honest and that there is a very small minority, of officials who are dishonest. As indicated above and in the attached explanations, when such cases are reported and investigated, those officials will be held accountable.

In terms of rand value:

Fraud cases for 2015, up until February 2015	Rands
Value of monies received	R1 065 141 235.00
Value of Fraud cases	1 484 017.00
Percentage (%)	0.139%

Fraud cases for 2014	Total
Value of monies received	R1 342 658 190.00
Value of Fraud cases	R1 489 259.00
Percentage (%)	0.111%

Fraud cases for 2013	Total
Value of monies received	R1 305 831 725.00
Value of Fraud cases	R2 320 523.00
Percentage (%)	0.178%

In terms of transactional value:

Fraud cases for 2015, up until February 2015	Total
Number of beneficiary receipts	15086
Number of Fraud cases	9
Percentage (%)	0.060%

Fraud cases for 2014	Total
Number of beneficiary receipts	18312
Number of Fraud cases	7
Percentage (%)	0.038%
Fraud cases for 2013	Total
Number of beneficiary receipts	25883
Number of Fraud cases	17
Percentage (%)	0.066%

It is trusted that this now, puts the matter into some perspective.

Office of the Chief Justice and Constitutional Development reply

There were no financial investigations conducted in the Office of the Chief Justice since April 2013.

The Honourable Steenhuisen will recall that functions relating to the Superior Courts were transferred to the Office of the Chief Justice from 1 October 2014. In this regard the Office of the Chief Justice did not commission any investigations from 1 April 2013 as it was a programme in the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development. Any matters reported and investigated prior to 1 October 2014 were dealt with by Department of Justice and Constitutional Development’s Forensic Audit Unit. A report of the Office of the Chief Justice investigations from 1 October 2014 is attached for more information.

OCJ FRAUD & CORRUPTION REGISTER - 2014/15
Date Received	Case No.		OCJ Forensic Investigator	Nature of Irregularities	Office	Name of Province	Status	Investigation Report: completion Date	Investigation Outcome	Amount	Completed investigation report Final Referral
1 Oct 2014	39/2014		Zakatha Tsotetsi	Fraudulent Court Order	JHB HC	Gauteng	In Progress			Not yet determined
1 Oct 2014	114/2014		Joel Segoapa	Corruption	Pretoria HC	Gauteng	Finalised	07 Nov 2014'	Allegation dispelled	Not yet determined	Report with P Nel
1 Oct 2014	115/2014		Zakatha Tsotetsi	Fraudulent Court Order	Pretoria HC	Gauteng	Finalised	Nov 2014'	Referred to Law Society	Not yet determined	Report with P Nel
1 Oct 2014	116/2014		Joel Segoapa	Financial Mismanagement	PMB HC	KZN	In Progress			Not yet determined
13 Nov 2014	117/2014		Joel Segoapa	Corruption	DBN HC	KZN	Reporting stage			Not yet determined
13 Nov 2014	118/2014		Joel Segoapa	Corruption	DBN HC	KZN	Reporting stage			Not yet determined
Nov 2014	119/2014		Zakatha Tsotetsi	Misconduct	JHB HC	Gauteng	Finalised	10 Dec 2014	Referred to CD:CS	Not yet determined	Report with ZB
9 Dec 2014	120/2013		Zakatha Tsotetsi	Forgery / Counterfeiting	ConCourt	Gauteng	Finalised	5 Feb 2015	Referred to CD:CS	Not yet determined	Report with ZB
Jan 2015'	121/2014		Zakatha Tsotetsi	Forgery / Counterfeiting	ConCourt	Gauteng	Finalised	26 March 2014	Referred to CD:CS	Not yet determined	Report with ZB
25-Feb-15	122/2014		Joel Segoapa	Misuse of Government owned vehicle	Venda	Limpopo	In Progress			Not yet determined
25-Feb	123/2014		Joel Segoapa	Fraud	JHB HC	Gauteng	In Progress			Not yet determined
25-Feb-15	124/2014		Joel Segoapa	Irregular Appointment	PTA HC	Gauteng	Reporting stage			Not yet determined

CASE #	CASE DESCRIPTION
39/2014	Matter received from the DoJ&CD. Investigation in progress.
114/2014	A civilian man masqueraded as a justice official and offered a woman job in exchange of monetary compensation or sexual favour. Complainant advised to open a criminal case.
115/2014	A firm of attorneys submitted a fraudulent court order at the Bank to freeze the assets of the respondents. Matter referred to Law Society.
116/2014	Abuse of state vehicles/Noncompliance with directives. Abuse of S&T. Unauthorized leave. Corruption. Investigation in progress.
117/2014	Official issuing/selling fraudulent Court Orders.
118/2014	Official issuing /selling fraudulent Court Orders. Same official as in 117 above. Investigation in progress.
119/2014	Chief Registrar of JHB selling gowns without permission and authorization. Investigation completed and referred to CD: Corporate Service for DC.
120/2014	Fraud and Corruption. Three officials not complying with SCM Policy. Forged signature of suppliers' and submitted falsified bid documents. Investigation completed and referred to CD: Corporate Services for D.C and/or Criminal.
121/2015	Fraud and Corruption. Three officials not complying with SCM Policy. Forged signature of suppliers' and submitted falsified bid documents. D.C and Criminal.
122/2015	Noncompliance with transport policy.
123/2015	Office manager failing to report absenteeism.
124/2015	Official appointed to higher position without following due process.

LEGENDS:
Report with Paul Nel		The copies of the reports submitted to Mr Paul Nel at DoJ&CD. Forensic Auditors were still reporting to him.
Report with ZB		The copies of the report have been submitted to Mr Zonge Baloyi for further DC processes.

Reply received: May 2015

PARLIAMENTARY QUESTIONS NUMBERS: 1327

DATE OF QUESTIONS: 17 APRIL 2015

DATE OF REPLIES: 30 APRIL 2015

Mr D.J. Maynier (Democratic Alliance [DA]), to ask the Minister of Justice and Correctional Services:

What is the total number of (a) reports that his department has received, (b) acknowledgement of receipts that his department issued and (c) directions not to proceed with a transaction were issued in terms of section 12 of the Protection of Constitutional Democracy Against Terrorist and Related Activities Act, Act 33 of 2004, in each specified financial year between 2004 and 2015?

NW1536E

REPLIES:

The information requested by the Honourable Member in relation to Section 12 of the Protection of Constitutional Democracy Against Terrorist and Related Activities Act 33 of 2004 can unfortunately not be provided as it falls under the responsibilities of the National Commissioner of Police and is thus within the knowledge of the Minister of Police.

Reply received: May 2015

NATIONAL ASSEMBLY

QUESTIONS FOR WRITTEN REPLY

PARLIAMENTARY QUESTIONS NUMBERS: 1326

DATE OF QUESTIONS: 17 APRIL 2015

DATE OF REPLIES: 30 APRIL 2015

Mr D.J. Maynier (Democratic Alliance [DA]), to ask the Minister of Justice and Correctional Services:

In respect of each specified case where persons were charged for offences relating to terrorism and related activities under the Protection of Constitutional Democracy Against Terrorist and Related Activities Act, Act 33 of 2004, between 2004 and 2015 what (a) is the case number of each case, (b) were the names of the persons charged, (c) were the (i) main and (ii) alternate charges against each person and (d) sentences, if any, were imposed against each person charged?

REPLIES:

Since the date of commencement of the Protection of Constitutional Democracy Against Terrorist and Related Activities Act 33 of 2004 (‘the POCDATARA Act’ and/or ‘the Act’), on 20 May 2005, the following six (6) criminal cases have arisen as a direct result of persons arrested and charged for alleged contraventions of the Act:

(i) S v Bogaards:

Two (2) people, namely, Jacobus Bogaards and his wife, Elizabeth Bogaards, were arrested on 13 January 2007 and charged with contravening sections 11 (i.e. harbouring or concealment of persons committing specified offences) and 12(1)(b) of the POCDATARA Act, (i.e. duty to report the presence of a person suspected of intending to commit or having committed a terrorist activity or specified offence) and alternatively, contravening section 115(e) of the Correctional Services Act 111 of 1998, (i.e. harbouring or concealing an escaped prisoner). The charges emanated from the two accused having harboured two escapees who were accused in the ‘Boeremag matter’ and failing to report same to the authorities. Both accused were subsequently convicted on the main charges in the Modimolle Regional Court. Jacobus Bogaards was sentenced to serve an effective period of five (5) years imprisonment and his wife, Elizabeth, to serve two (2) years imprisonment, wholly suspended on certain conditions.

On appeal to the North Gauteng High Court, the conviction of Jacobus Bogaards on the two main counts were set aside and replaced with a conviction on the alternative count of contravening section 115(e) of the Correctional Services Act 111 of 1998 and a sentence of five (5) years imprisonment was imposed. The conviction of his wife was set aside.

Jacobus Bogaards unsuccessfully appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) against both his conviction and sentence. The judgment of the SCA is attainable at S v Bogaards 2011 JDR 1572 (SCA).

On 28 September 2012, Mr Bogaards was unsuccessful in appealing his conviction to the Constitutional Court, but succeeded in having his sentence of five (5) years imprisonment set aside and remitted to the Modimolle Regional Court for an appropriate sentence to be imposed. The Constitutional Court judgment is attainable at S v Bogaards 2013 (1) SACR 1 (CC)].

The Modimolle Regional Court subsequently sentenced Mr Bogaards to serve a period of five (5) years imprisonment of which two (2) years were suspended for a period of five (5) years.

(ii) S v Johannes Jacobus Scheepers:

The accused was arraigned in the Pretoria Regional Court (case number 216/2010) on 9 counts relating to the unlawful possession of firearms and ammunition and the manufacture of hand grenades in contravention of the Firearms Control Act 60 of 2000. The 10th charge was a contravention of section 2 of the POCDATARA Act (i.e. engaging in a terrorist activity). On 13 June 2012, after the trial commenced and the State had presented evidence of an undercover operation in terms of section 252A of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977, the accused pleaded guilty to 9 charges relating to possession of firearms in contravention of section 3 and 4 of the Firearms Control Act 60 of 2000. The prosecution accepted the guilty plea, resulting in the conviction of the accused on the aforementioned 9 charges. On 13 June 2012, the accused was sentenced to serve an effective period of seven (7) years imprisonment (12 years imprisonment of which 5 years was suspended for a period of 5 years on condition that the accused is not convicted for unlawful possession of fire arms and ammunition and explosives.)

(iii) S v Mustafa Mohamed:

The accused pleaded guilty to one count of contravening section 3(2) (f) of the POCDATARA Act (i.e. possession of things connected with the engagement in a terrorist activity). The accused was found in possession of chemicals that can be used in the manufacture of an improvised explosive device. The accused entered into a plea and sentence agreement with the State in terms of section 105A of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 in the Wynberg Regional Court on or about 13 or 14 October 2011, which resulted in the accused being sentenced to serve a period of ten (10) years imprisonment, wholly suspended for a period of five (5) years.

(iv) S v Trollip and 3 Others:

The four accused, namely Mark Trollip, John Martin Keevy, Johan Hendrik Prinsloo and Hein Boonzaaier were arrested on 16 December 2012 on charges of High Treason and conspiracy to engage in a terrorist activity in contravention of section 14(c), read with section 2 of the POCDTARA Act for their roles in the thwarted attack on the President of the Republic of South Africa and senior Cabinet Ministers at the African National Congress’s (ANC’s) Mangaung Elective Conference. The accused appeared in the Bloemfontein Magistrates’ and Regional Courts under case numbers 21/1976/2012 and 14/143/2013, respectively.

The charges against Mr Boonzaaier were withdrawn due to insufficient evidence. Mr Keevy was referred to psychiatric observation and was declared a State Patient. Mr Trollip pleaded guilty to a charge of conspiracy to engage in an act of terrorism in contravention of section 14(c), read with section 2 of the POCDATARA Act, and was sentenced to serve an effective period of eight (8) years imprisonment in the Bloemfontein High Court after entering into a plea and sentence agreement with the State during November 2013. (Bloemfontein High Court Case number 68/2013 has reference).

During 2014, Johan Prinsloo was indicted in the Bloemfontein High Court and at the conclusion of this trial, was convicted on the main charge of High Treason and sentenced to serve an effective period of 13 years imprisonment, i.e. sixteen (16) years’ imprisonment of which six (6) years were suspended. He was sentenced to serve a further three (3) years’ imprisonment for possession of ammunition in contravention of the Firearms Control Act 60 of 2000. [The facts of the matter can also be found at S v Prinsloo 2013 JDR 0928 (FB) and S v Keevy 2013 JDR 0930 (FB)].

(v) S v Georgios Kiratzidis & 2 Others, (North Gauteng High Court case number 176/2010).

The three accused, namely Georgios Kiratzidis, Marthinus Vorster and Ruan Louw were indicted in the Circuit Local Division of the Northern Circuit District of the North Gauteng High Court, sitting in Phalaborwa, on the following charges:

Contravening section 14(c) read with section 2 of the POCDATARA Act (i.e. Conspiracy to engage in a terrorist activity);
Contravening section 14(b), read with section 3(2)(d) of POCDATARA (i.e. Attempt to recruit an entity connected with the engagement in a terrorist activity);
Contravening section 3(2)(f), read with section 2 of POCDATARA (i.e. Possession of a thing connected with the engagement in a terrorist activity), alternatively, contravening section 28 read with sections 1, 27 and 28(2) of the Explosives Act 26 of 1956; (Unlawful Possession of Explosives);
Contravening section 3(2)(a), read with section 2 of POCDATARA (i.e. Providing a weapon to a person(s) for use and/or for the benefit of an entity connected with the engagement in a terrorist activity), alternatively, contravening section 3(1) of the Explosives Act 26 of 1956; (Unlawful manufacturing of explosives);
Contravening section 3 of the Firearms Control Act, No 60 of 2000 (i.e. Unlawful possession of firearm);
Contravening section 90 of the Firearms Control Act, No 60 of 2000 (i.e. Unlawful possession of ammunition);
Violation of a grave.

The matter emanated from the accused conspiring to kill black people in and around Phalaborwa. The trial commenced on 9 May 2011. On 10 December 2012, the accused were convicted as follows:

Georgios Kiratzidis:

(i) Count 1: Contravening section 14(c) read with section 2 of the Protection of Constitutional Democracy Against Terrorist and Related Activities Act, No 33 of 2004 (i.e. Conspiracy to engage in a terrorist activity);

(ii) Third alternative to Count 2: Contravening section 14(b), read with section 3(2)(d), read further with section 2 of the Protection of Constitutional Democracy Against Terrorist and Related Activities Act, No 33 of 2004 (i.e. Attempt to recruit an entity connected with the engagement in a terrorist activity);

(iii) Alternative to Count 3: Contravening section 28 of the Explosives Act, No 26 of 1956 (i.e. Possession of Explosives);

(iv) Count 5: Contravening section 3 of the Arms and Ammunition Act, No 60 of 2000 (i.e. Unlawful Possession of Firearm);

(v) Count 6: Contravening section 90 of the Firearms Control Act, No 60 of 2000 (Unlawful Possession of Ammunition); and

(vi) Count 8: Violation of a Grave.

Marthinus Vorster:

(iii) Count 8: Violation of a Grave.

Ruan Louw:

The alternative to Count 4, for contravening section 3(1) of the Explosives Act, No 26 of 1956 (i.e. unlawful manufacturing of explosives). Mr Louw’s matter was separated from that of his co-accused for purposes of sentencing and on 12 December 2012, he was sentenced to pay a fine of Fifty Thousand Rand (R50 000-00) or to serve a period of one (1) year imprisonment. In addition, Mr Louw was further sentenced to serve a period of one (1) year imprisonment, suspended for a period of five (5) years.

On 18 April 2013, Mr Kiratzidis was sentenced to serve an effective twelve (12) years’ imprisonment, whilst Mr Vorster was sentenced to serve an effective period of five (5) years’ imprisonment. Their respective sentenced were broken down as follows:

Mr Kiratzidis:

(i) Count 1: Seven (7) years’ imprisonment;

(ii) Count 2: Three (3) years’ imprisonment;

(iii) Count 3: Three (3) years’ imprisonment;

(iv) Count 5: Three (3) years’ imprisonment;

(v) Count 6: Two (2) years’ imprisonment, and;

(vi) Count 8: Two (2) years’ imprisonment.

The Court directed that the sentences imposed in respect of Counts 2, 3 and 8, run concurrently with the sentence imposed in respect of Count 1, with the effective sentence imposed, being twelve (12) years’ imprisonment.

Mr Vorster:

(i) Count 1: Five (5) years’ imprisonment;

(ii) Count 2: Three (3) years’ imprisonment; and

(iii) Count 8: Two (2) years’ imprisonment.

The Court directed that the sentences imposed in respect of Counts 2 and 8, run concurrently with the sentence imposed in respect of Count 1, with the effective sentence imposed being five (5) years’ imprisonment.

On 28 November 2013, the Supreme Court of Appeal dismissed both Mr Kiratzidis’ and Mr Vorster’s petitions for leave to appeal and on 14 February 2014, the Constitutional Court dismissed both the latters’ applications for leave to appeal on the grounds that the applications bore no prospects of success. [See Marthinus Vorster v S, Constitutional Court case number 178/2013 and Georgios Kiratzidis v National Director of Public Prosecutions, Constitutional Court case number CCT 180/2013].

(vi) S v Henry Emomotimi Okah, (South Gauteng High Court Case Number SS 94/2011).

The accused, a 46-year old Nigerian male citizen, and a permanent resident of the Republic of South Africa, was convicted in the South Gauteng High Court on 21 January 2013 on the following thirteen (13) charges in contravention of the POCDATARA Act:

Count 1:

Contravening Section 2 of Act 33 of 2004 (Engaging in terrorist activities);

Count 2:

Contravening Section 2 of Act 33 of 2004 (Engaging in terrorist activities);

Count 3:

Contravening Section 5(a) of Act 33 of 2004 (Deliver, place and/or detonate an explosive device causing death and serious bodily injury);

Count 4:

Contravening Section 5(a) of Act 33 of 2004 (Deliver, place and/or detonate an explosive device causing death and serious bodily injury);

Count 5:

Contravening Section 5(b) of Act 33 of 2004 (Deliver, place and/or detonate an explosive device with the purpose to cause extensive damage to and/or destruction of a place and/or facility);

Count 6:

Contravening Section 5(b) of Act 33 of 2004 (Deliver, place and/or detonate an explosive device with the purpose to cause extensive damage to and/or destruction of a place and/or facility);

Count 7:

Contravening Section 14(b), read with section 8(a) of Act 33 of 2004 (Attempt to cause harm to internationally protected persons);

Count 8:

Contravening Section 14(b), read with section 8(a) of Act 33 of 2004 (Attempt to cause harm to internationally protected persons);

Count 9:

Contravening Section 4(1) (f) of Act 33 of 2004 (Terror financing: Providing and/or making available property to commit or facilitate the commission of a specified offence);

Count 10:

Contravening Section 4(1) (f) of Act 33 of 2004 (Terror financing: Providing and/or making available property to commit or facilitate the commission of a specified offence);

Count 11:

Contravening Section 3(a) of Act 33 of 2004 (Committing an act which enhances the ability of an entity to engage in a terrorist activity);

Count 12:

Contravening Section 3(a) of Act 33 of 2004 (Committing an act which enhances the ability of an entity to engage in a terrorist activity); and

Count 13:

Contravening Section 14(a) read with section 2 of Act 33 of 2004 (Threatening to engage in a terrorist activity).

Counts 1, 3, 5, 7, 9 and 11 emanate from the detonation of two vehicle-borne improvised explosive devices on 15 March 2010 in Warri, Nigeria, which resulted in the death of one (1) person and severe injuries to eleven (11) other persons.

Counts 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 and 12 emanate from the detonation of two vehicle-borne improvised explosive devices on 1 October 2010 in Abuja, Nigeria, which resulted in the death of eight (8) persons and severe injuries to fifty-three (53) other persons.

Count 13 emanates from threats directed against the Republic of South Africa.

On 26 March 2013 the South Gauteng High Court imposed the following sentence on the accused:

(i) In respect of Counts 1, 3, 5, 7, 9 and 11, (“Warri Bombings”), which were taken together for purpose of sentence, Mr Okah was sentenced to 12 years’ imprisonment.

(ii) In respect of Counts 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 and 12, (”Abuja Bombings”), which were taken together for purpose of sentence, Mr Okah was also sentenced to 12 years’ imprisonment.

(iii) In respect of Count 13, (“Threats”) Mr Okah was sentenced to serve 10 years’ imprisonment. The Court ordered the sentence imposed in respect of Count 13, run concurrently with the sentence imposed in respect of the Abuja Bombings charges, effectively sentencing Mr Okah to serve 24 years’ imprisonment.

On 28 November 2013, Mr Okah was granted leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal on the trial Court’s assumption of jurisdiction to hear counts 1 to 12. The accused has subsequently challenged the constitutionality of the extra-territorial provisions contained in section 15(2) of the POCDATARA Act. The Ministers of Police, Justice and Correctional Services and International Relations and Cooperation have been added as parties to the application which is presently pending in the Supreme Court of Appeal under case number 19/2014. [The judgment of the South Gauteng High Court can be attained at S v Okah 2013 JDR 0219 (GSJ) and at S v Okah 2013 JDR 0874 (GSJ).

Reply received: May 2015

PARLIAMENTARY QUESTIONS NUMBERS: 1325

DATE OF QUESTIONS: 17 APRIL 2015

DATE OF REPLIES: 30 APRIL 2015

Mr D.J. Maynier (Democratic Alliance [DA]), to ask the Minister of Justice and Correctional Services:

Question 1325:

(a) How many persons have been charged under the Protection of Constitutional Democracy Against Terrorist and Related Activities Act, 2004 (Act No 33 of 2004) and (b) in respect of each case, how many charges were (i) withdrawn or (ii) referred to court?

In respect of cases referred to court, how many persons were convicted for the specified offences relating to terrorist activities (a) (i) in total and (b) in each specified calendar year between 2004 and 2015?

REPLIES:

(i) S v Bogaards:

Jacobus Bogaards unsuccessfully appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) against both his conviction and sentence. The judgment of the SCA is attainable at S v Bogaards 2011 JDR 1572 (SCA).

The Modimolle Regional Court subsequently sentenced Mr Bogaards to serve a period of five (5) years imprisonment of which two (2) years were suspended for a period of five (5) years.

(ii) S v Johannes Jacobus Scheepers:

(iii) S v Mustafa Mohamed:

(iv) S v Trollip and 3 Others:

(v) S v Georgios Kiratzidis & 2 Others, (North Gauteng High Court case number 176/2010).

Contravening section 14(c) read with section 2 of the POCDATARA Act (i.e. Conspiracy to engage in a terrorist activity);
Contravening section 14(b), read with section 3(2)(d) of POCDATARA (i.e. Attempt to recruit an entity connected with the engagement in a terrorist activity);
Contravening section 3(2)(f), read with section 2 of POCDATARA (i.e. Possession of a thing connected with the engagement in a terrorist activity), alternatively, contravening section 28 read with sections 1, 27 and 28(2) of the Explosives Act 26 of 1956; (Unlawful Possession of Explosives);
Contravening section 3(2)(a), read with section 2 of POCDATARA (i.e. Providing a weapon to a person(s) for use and/or for the benefit of an entity connected with the engagement in a terrorist activity), alternatively, contravening section 3(1) of the Explosives Act 26 of 1956; (Unlawful manufacturing of explosives);
Contravening section 3 of the Firearms Control Act, No 60 of 2000 (i.e. Unlawful possession of firearm);
Contravening section 90 of the Firearms Control Act, No 60 of 2000 (i.e. Unlawful possession of ammunition);
Violation of a grave.

The matter emanated from the accused conspiring to kill black people in and around Phalaborwa. The trial commenced on 9 May 2011. On 10 December 2012, the accused were convicted as follows:

Georgios Kiratzidis:

(iii) Alternative to Count 3: Contravening section 28 of the Explosives Act, No 26 of 1956 (i.e. Possession of Explosives);

(iv) Count 5: Contravening section 3 of the Arms and Ammunition Act, No 60 of 2000 (i.e. Unlawful Possession of Firearm);

(v) Count 6: Contravening section 90 of the Firearms Control Act, No 60 of 2000 (Unlawful Possession of Ammunition); and

(vi) Count 8: Violation of a Grave.

Marthinus Vorster:

(iii) Count 8: Violation of a Grave.

Ruan Louw:

Mr Kiratzidis:

(i) Count 1: Seven (7) years’ imprisonment;

(ii) Count 2: Three (3) years’ imprisonment;

(iii) Count 3: Three (3) years’ imprisonment;

(iv) Count 5: Three (3) years’ imprisonment;

(v) Count 6: Two (2) years’ imprisonment, and;

(vi) Count 8: Two (2) years’ imprisonment.

Mr Vorster:

(i) Count 1: Five (5) years’ imprisonment;

(ii) Count 2: Three (3) years’ imprisonment; and

(iii) Count 8: Two (2) years’ imprisonment.

(vi) S v Henry Emomotimi Okah, (South Gauteng High Court Case Number SS 94/2011).

Count 1:

Contravening Section 2 of Act 33 of 2004 (Engaging in terrorist activities);

Count 2:

Contravening Section 2 of Act 33 of 2004 (Engaging in terrorist activities);

Count 3:

Contravening Section 5(a) of Act 33 of 2004 (Deliver, place and/or detonate an explosive device causing death and serious bodily injury);

Count 4:

Contravening Section 5(a) of Act 33 of 2004 (Deliver, place and/or detonate an explosive device causing death and serious bodily injury);

Count 5:

Contravening Section 5(b) of Act 33 of 2004 (Deliver, place and/or detonate an explosive device with the purpose to cause extensive damage to and/or destruction of a place and/or facility);

Count 6:

Contravening Section 5(b) of Act 33 of 2004 (Deliver, place and/or detonate an explosive device with the purpose to cause extensive damage to and/or destruction of a place and/or facility);

Count 7:

Contravening Section 14(b), read with section 8(a) of Act 33 of 2004 (Attempt to cause harm to internationally protected persons);

Count 8:

Contravening Section 14(b), read with section 8(a) of Act 33 of 2004 (Attempt to cause harm to internationally protected persons);

Count 9:

Contravening Section 4(1) (f) of Act 33 of 2004 (Terror financing: Providing and/or making available property to commit or facilitate the commission of a specified offence);

Count 10:

Contravening Section 4(1) (f) of Act 33 of 2004 (Terror financing: Providing and/or making available property to commit or facilitate the commission of a specified offence);

Count 11:

Contravening Section 3(a) of Act 33 of 2004 (Committing an act which enhances the ability of an entity to engage in a terrorist activity);

Count 12:

Contravening Section 3(a) of Act 33 of 2004 (Committing an act which enhances the ability of an entity to engage in a terrorist activity); and

Count 13:

Contravening Section 14(a) read with section 2 of Act 33 of 2004 (Threatening to engage in a terrorist activity).

Count 13 emanates from threats directed against the Republic of South Africa.

On 26 March 2013 the South Gauteng High Court imposed the following sentence on the accused:

(i) In respect of Counts 1, 3, 5, 7, 9 and 11, (“Warri Bombings”), which were taken together for purpose of sentence, Mr Okah was sentenced to 12 years’ imprisonment.

(ii) In respect of Counts 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 and 12, (”Abuja Bombings”), which were taken together for purpose of sentence, Mr Okah was also sentenced to 12 years’ imprisonment.

Reply received: April 2015

QUESTION NO. 1224

INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 9 of 2015 {NW1430E}

DATE OF PUBLICATION: 27 March 2015

Ms J Steenkamp (DA) to ask the Minister of Environmental Affairs:

(1) Does her department, with reference to the Medium Term Expenditure Framework allocations in which her department has prioritised certain goals, which include (a) job creation for youth at a municipal level and (b) piloting separation of waste at its source, have any plans in place to reach its prioritised goals; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details of such plans;

(2) does her department have any plans in place to (a) initiate and (b) incentivise a ban on plastic products at landfill sites; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details;

(3) does her department have any plans in place to increase the number of recycling facilities; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details;

(4) does her department have any plans in place to (a) incentivise and (b) increase take back initiatives for recyclable waste; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details;

(5) does her department intend to take any steps to force companies to take back their waste products and recycle it themselves; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details? NW1430E

1224. THE MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS REPLIES:

(1)(a) Yes, the department has youth development initiatives country wide, which take place within different municipalities. These include Youth Jobs in Waste and Youth Environmental Services programmes. The number of young people participating in these programmes is 5 764.

(b) Yes, the department has plans to develop Industry Waste Management Plans (IndWMPs) for the following waste streams, for now we are implementing 2 waste streams, namely, Plastic and Tyre. We will be announcing 3 additional waste streams during our policy speech this year. Other than the management of the waste streams themselves, these IndWMPs have a focus on job creation and Small Micro and Medium Enterprises (SMME) development. The targets for job creation will then be set within the respective IndWMPs. There are also programmes relating to Extended Public Works Programme (EPWP) also aimed at creating jobs from waste management programmes.

The Paper and Packaging IndWMP referred to above will specifically be targeting separation at source. The IndWMP will ensure that the necessary systems and infrastructure for separation at source are put in place.

(2)(a) Through the IndWMPs for specific waste streams. The most appropriate way to deal with plastics is to provide mechanisms that ensure the diversion of plastics from landfill by establishing separation at source and other supporting segregation systems such a Materials Recovery Facilities (MRFs) as well as facilitating the uptake of the plastic material into re-use, recycling and/or recovery processes which are all part of our policy and implementation plan.

(b) The department through the Waste Management Bureau will be incentivising diversion of waste from landfill sites as the IndWMPs are implemented. The Waste Bureau will, among other functions, be responsible for disbursement of the incentives derived from the implementation of IndWMP relating to plastic.

(3) Yes, there is a strong move towards a recycling economy, with an intention of increasing revenue generated from waste recycling. This will obviously require the increase in the number of recycling facilities. Also, as explained above, the main purpose for IndWMPs is to promote waste stream management in alignment with the waste hierarchy (promoting reuse, recycling and recovery over disposal to land). The IndWMPs therefore have to support establishing systems, processes and relevant infrastructure to ensure that waste is managed in alignment with the waste hierarchy. Currently, the department has commenced with waste tyres.. This model will be replicated for the other waste streams that are to be announced.

(4)(a) Yes, the tool that the department has chosen as the preferred one for managing plastic waste is the IndWMP as explained above. Hence, incentives will be through participation in the IndWMP and disbursement of the incentives by the Waste Management Bureau. The return schemes for waste streams may not always be suitable in all cases. The costs of setting up such systems, the monetary value of the specific product that results in the targeted waste stream as well as the potential incentive (amount of money) to be received by people returning such items are important aspects to consider. Both regulatory and economic instruments are used to promote recycling and to ensure waste diversion from landfill sites.

(b) The Product Responsibility Organisations (PROs) through their IndWMPs will be taking back the recyclable material and role players will be incentivised according to the plans they have or waste they bring to the plan. In addition, it is always important to build on the existing systems especially in cases where we need to optimise job creation. The IndWMP will build on the already existing systems, which are inclusive of the existing SMME sector for taking back waste. Several voluntary schemes dealing with various waste streams have already been operating in the country for many years.

(5) The concept of IndWMPs is indeed based on the principle of producer responsibility. This tool is implemented by placing a legal obligation on producers to manage their respective waste streams more responsibly. In this regard producers are responsible, through the development of an IndWMP, to come up with ways of managing their waste streams in a manner that is aligned to the waste hierarchy.

Reply received: April 2015

PARLIAMENTARY QUESTION NO: 1220

DATE OF QUESTION: 27 MARCH 2015

DATE OF SUBMISSION: 10 APRIL 2015

Adv G Breytenbach (DA) to ask the Minister of Justice and Correctional Services:

Since his reply to oral question 32 on 5 March 2015 and with reference to retired Constitutional Court Justice Yacoob’s enquiry into the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) and the findings contained in his report, what are the reasons for not making recommendations to the President, Mr Jacob G Zuma, that persons named in the report, who continue to bring the NPA into disrepute and who continue to undermine the position and authority of the National Director of Public Prosecutions, should be suspended? NW1426E

REPLY

I wish to advise the Honourable member, that I was furnished with the National Prosecuting Authority report on the Fact Finding Commission which was conducted by retired Justice Yacoob during February this year. It is also important to mention that the report was only furnished to me after I asked my office to inquire from the Chief Executive Officer of the NPA what the position was regarding the matter involving the Deputy National Directors Adv Nomgcobo Jiba and Adv Lawrence Morwebi and Director of Public Prosecution Adv Sibongile Mzinyathi.

In response to our inquiry, the Justice Yacoob’s report was submitted together with other information pertaining to criminal investigations instituted and investigations by the professional body pertaining to the conduct of the above three members of the National Prosecuting Authority.

Upon studying the reports entrusted to me by the NPA including Justice Yacoob’s report, I observed that certain matters of law and fact required that I seek clarity and further information. It is important that I obtain all information relevant to the matter to be able to advise the President appropriately.

Not only is the Honourable Member privy of the matters at hand, but she has herself been entangled in this whole debacle and is therefore in a position to share some of the information she now demands from me. She was part of the NPA machinery at that time and not only did the matters surfaced right under her nose, she herself orchestrated some these issues, or aggravated them.

I wish to quote from the following from the statement issued by the SACP on 11 February 2015 questioning manner in which Honourable Breytenbach has persistently pursued this matter.

“The SACP notes with serious concern the comments that "Democratic Alliance" (DA) Member of Parliament (MP) Glynnis Breytenbach continues to make about what is going on inside the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA). We believe that Breytenbach is severely conflicted and compromised to comment as a neutral person on matters relating to the NPA.

Ms Breytenbach still has a lot to answer for about her behaviour whilst she was in the NPA, including very serious allegations of conflicts of interest and corruption on her part. It is a well-known fact that she also went to great lengths to try and sabotage the investigation, including refusal to submit her laptop and attempts at erasing its contents.

The SACP remains concerned about the fact that the investigation into Ms Breytenbach by the NPA was not properly concluded and therefore the process, from our standpoint, remains incomplete. As a matter of fact some of the people she is now demonising, abusing her privilege as an MP, were part of the people who were investigating her whilst she was in the NPA.

We are of the view that before Ms Breytenbach starts pointing fingers at the President and other people, she still owes the country and the Justice system a full explanation about her own conduct whilst in the NPA.

The SACP is also deeply concerned that whilst sections of the media are fully aware of these matters relating Ms Breytenbach, but because she is a DA MP, they have chosen to be conveniently silent.”. (Close quote)

Honourable Speaker, I am inclined to align myself with some of the views expressed in the statement issued by the SCAP in so far as they question the integrity of Honourable Breytenbach in raining matters in which she has a personal interest. Her conduct obscure what would otherwise been a legitimate oversight function that the Constitution assigns to this esteemed Parliament.

It has become evident that Honourable Breytenbach, under the auspices of the DA, uses this esteemed House to settle old scores with her adversaries at the NPA.

Reply received: April 2015

PARLIAMENTARY QUESTION NO: 1219

DATE OF QUESTION: 27 MARCH 2015

DATE OF SUBMISSION: 10 APRIL 2015

Adv G Breytenbach (DA) to ask the Minister of Justice and Correctional Services:

(a) When does he intend to accede to the National Director of Public Prosecutions’ repeated written requests that the President, Mr Jacob G Zuma, should be approached with a view to suspending certain high-ranking individuals within the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) because (i) of their conduct in respect of which both the High Court of South Africa and the Supreme Court of Appeal have made adverse findings on in relation to them and (ii) they both have criminal charges pending against them and (b) what is the reason for the delay? NW1425E

REPLY

I have already alluded in my earlier response to the question by Honourable Breytenabach regarding the report of the Inquiry conducted by retired Justice Yakoob. The President will be apprised of the matter once I have considered facts relevant to the matter.
I also wish to bring to Honourable Member’s attention that in terms of section 12(6) of the National Prosecuting Act, 1998 (Act No. 32 0f 1998), the President may only contemplate suspending an incumbent of the office of National Director of Public Prosecutions, Deputy National Director of Public Prosecutions or Director of Public Prosecutions pending an inquiry into such incumbent’s fitness to hold such office. This implies that suspension of an incumbent of any of the above office arises only after the President has made a decision regarding the appointment of an Inquiry into the fitness of any such incumbent to hold such office. This is therefore a matter that the President will consider once he is seized of the matter.

Reply received: April 2015

PARLIAMENTARY QUESTION NO: 1152

DATE OF QUESTION: 27 MARCH 2015

DATE OF SUBMISSION: 10 APRIL 2015

Mr SC Motau (DA) to ask the Minister of Justice and Correctional Services:

(a) How many sick leave days were taken by employees of his department in the 2013-14 financial year and (b) what was the total cost thereof in rand? NW1353E

REPLY

The number of sick leave days taken and the cost thereof is:

DEPARTMENT

FINANCIAL YEAR

NUMBER OF DAYS SICK LEAVE TAKEN

COST

Justice and Constitutional Development

1 April 2013 to 31 March 2014

163 897.50 days

R130 443 024.20

Correctional Services

1 April 2013 to 31 March 2014

10 607 days

R13 644 152.00

Reply received: April 2015

PARLIAMENTARY QUESTION NO: 1117

DATE OF QUESTION: 27 MARCH 2015

DATE OF SUBMISSION: 10 APRIL 2015

Mr J J McGluwa (DA) to ask the Minister of Justice and Correctional Services:

(a) What amount did (i) his department and (ii) state entities reporting to him spend on each newspaper subscription in each month (aa) in the (aaa) 2011-12, (bbb) 2012-13 and (ccc) 2013-14 financial years and (bb) during the period 1 April 2014 up to the latest specified date for which information is available and (b) how many copies of each newspaper were ordered on each day of the week (i) in each specified financial year and (ii) during the period 1 April 2014 up to the latest specified date for which information is available? NW1282E

REPLY

(i) The Department’s newspaper spending amounted to R1, 511 million between 1 April 2011 to date. This expenditure included newspaper subscription for national office units, regional offices and members of the judiciary across nine provinces. The details of expenditure per month and financial year are included in the following table.

	2011-2012	2012-2013	1 April 2014 to 27 March 2015	Total
April	3,356.50	9,174.75	8,950.52	21,481.77
May	29,552.35	22,360.40	22,565.87	74,478.62
June	48,814.01	84,156.82	61754.75	194,725.58
July	24,588.78	42,245.66	40,093.82	106,928.26
August	79,442.24	61,193.77	44,498.56	185,134.57
September	28,482.79	43,147.85	58,663.55	130,294.19
October	44,117.48	23,843.05	79,820.95	147,781.48
November	56,367.62	64,417.39	48,022.59	168,807.60
December	72,635.91	41,387.32	16,133.58	130,156.81
January	11,986.21	25,591.23	12,391.48	49,968.92
February	30,444.84	86,963.24	8,939.05	126,347.13
March	21,088.03	91,550.04	63,134.22	175,772.29
Total	450,876.76	596,031.52	464,968.94	1,511,877.22

(ii) The following entities have reported expenditure in this regard, as follows:

The National Prosecuting Authority has spent R 804 635.03 since April 2011 on newspaper subscriptions. The breakdown of this amount, is as follows:

	FINANCIAL YEAR
Month	2011/12	2012/13	2013/14	2014/15
April	20 066.68	21 430.23	6 160.18	9 083.14
May	26 499.85	58 904.18	21 318.73	13 946.11
June	56 440.58	12 251.22	4 846.14	10 339.07
July	31 405.29	1 876.60	9 593.63	3 485.10
August	28 193.53	26 839.62	7 109.26	14 308.16
September	12 285.04	10 309.15	11 926.72	19 179.61
October	31 248.17	12 112.13	6 987.16	14 769.89
November	41 661.73	11 150.75	7 718.91	22 545.50
December	2 212.37	5 653.86	6 439.86	12 309.19
January	11 840.66	7 968.00	1 289.42	11 996.70
February	42 197.19	3 117.97	32 997.40	10 644.76
March	33 188.74	24 543.54	12 243.31
Grand Total	337 239.83	196 157.25	128 630.72	142 607.23

The NPA appoints different service providers to deliver newspapers to head office and various DPP offices of the organisation across the country, on a monthly basis.

In order to drill down to the level of detail of quantity and amount per newspaper, per office, per week is not possible within the timeframes provided to supply a response, as the NPA would have to find and reconcile all the invoices since April 2011 to February 2015.

This would be a laborious exercise that is not possible with the current resources available, especially at such a crucial period of financial year end. Should further detail still be required, the NPA would request an extension of 2 weeks to collate all the relevant detail required.

It must be noted, as it is also clear from the annual figures, that the NPA has taken measures over the years to reduce expenditure on newspaper subscriptions. The annual figures presented in the table above illustrate that, and the CEO has issued an instruction that the NPA will not continue with newspaper subscriptions for all offices except for the libraries in the new financial year (2015/16).

Legal Aid South Africa

Newspapers	Total amount for the year	Average amount per month (Note 1)
Business day	18,330	1,528
Daily News	2,228	186
Financial Mail	984	82
Isolezwe	1,260	105
Mail & Guardian	8,985	749
Mercury	1,282	107
Natal Witness	879	73
Sunday times	832	69
The star	12,331	1,028
Total	47,111	3,926

(bbb) 2012-13

Newspapers	Total amount for the year	Average amount per month
Cape Argus	2,431	203
Daily News	3,511	293
Cape Times	4,419	368
Isolezwe	641	53
Mail & Guardian	9,301	775
Mercury	8,693	724
Natal Witness	932	78
Observer	866	72
New Age	792	66
Sowetan	896	75
Sunday Times	832	69
The Herald	1,170	98
The Star	18,928	1,577
Total	62,553	10,426

(ccc) 2013-14

Newspaper	Total amount for the year	Average amount per month
Business Day	12,852	1,071
Cape Argus	2,783	232
City Press	676	56
Daily News	3,699	308
Isolezwe	1,604	134
Mail & Guardian	15,150	1,263
Mercury	4,177	348
Sowetan	896	75
The Herald	1,170	98
The New Age	3,168	264
The Star	17,154	1,430
Total	53,928	4,494

(bb) 1 April 2014 – 26 March 2015

Newspaper	Total amount for the year	Average amount per month
Business day	9,639	803
Mail & Guardian	10,150	846
The New Age	792	66
The Star	9,532	794
Total	30,113	2,509

Notes for clarity

Average amount per month has been determined because renewal costs changes during the cause of the year

(b) Number of copies of each newspaper ordered per day of the week

(i) 2011-12

Newspaper	Mon	Tues	Wed	Thurs	Fri	Sat	Sun
Business day	7	7	7	7	7
Daily News	4	4	4	4	4
Financial Mail				1
Isolezwe	2	2	2	2	2
Mail & Guardian					11
Mercury	1	1	1	1	1
Natal Witness	1	1	1	1	1
Sunday times							1
The star	9	9	9	9	9
Total	24	24	24	24	35	0	1

(i) 2012-13

Newspaper	Mon	Tues	Wed	Thurs	Fri	Sat	Sun
Cape Argus	2	2	2	2	2
Daily News	6	6	6	6	6
Cape Times	3	3	3	3	3
Isolezwe	1	1	1	1	1
Mail & Guardian					9
Mercury	6	6	6	6	6
Natal Witness	1	1	1	1	1
Observer		2		2
New Age	1	1	1	1	1
Sowetan	1	1	1	1	1
Sunday Times							1
The Herald	1	1	1	1	1
The Star	13	13	13	13	13
Total	34	36	34	36	43	0	1

(i) 2013-14

Newspaper	Mon	Tues	Wed	Thurs	Fri	Sat	Sun
Business Day	4	4	4	4	4
Cape Argus	2	2	2	2	2
City Press							1
Daily News	6	6	6	6	6
Isolezwe
Mail & Guardian					11
Mercury	3	3	3	3	3
Sowetan	1	1	1	1	1
The Herald	1	1	1	1	1
The New Age	4	4	4	4	4
The Star	11	11	11	11	11
Total	32	32	32	32	43	0	1

(ii) 1 April 2014 – 26 March 2015

Newspaper	Mon	Tues	Wed	Thurs	Fri	Sat	Sun
Business day	3	3	3	3	3
Mail & Guardian					7
The New Age	1	1	1	1	1
The Star	6	6	6	6	6
Total	10	10	10	10	17	0	0

The total cost of newspaper subscription for the head office of the Special Investigating Unit and eight regional offices for the years reflected is R 86 720.63 and its breakdown is as follows:

TOTAL COST PER FINANCIAL YEAR (BASED ON ACTUAL PAYMENTS)

2011/12 Financial year R26 023.72

2012/13 Financial year R24 443.22

2013/14 Financial year R36 253.69

2014/15 Financial Year (Petty Cash) R140.00

Total R 86 720.63

1.2 NUMBER OF COPIES

1.2.1 The type of publications and the number of copies cannot be clarified as they are dependent on the need of the office as some of the papers are for national or regional circulation. This results in some offices having more subscriptions than others due to the publications available in the area and the number of users per office.

As already mentioned above, the department made newspaper acquisitions for national office, regional office and members of the judiciary in all nine provinces of the country. The sheer volume of transactions involved made it impossible for the department to provide information regarding the quantities of newspapers delivered per week in each of the financial years indicated above, within set timeframes.

Should it be maintained that this information is still required, the department will require at least 3 weeks to provide accurate quantities that are reconciling to the reported expenditure.

It is important to highlight that following Treasury’s instruction note on cost containment, approval for newspaper subscription was limited to the following Offices and Branches in the department: Office of the Minister, Office of the Deputy Minister, Office of the Director – General and Public Education and Communication. The impact of the latter can be observed in the decreased expenditure pattern in the 2014/15 financial year.

Reply received: April 2015

PARLIAMENTARY QUESTION NO: 1082

DATE OF QUESTION: 27 MARCH 2015

DATE OF SUBMISSION: 10 APRIL 2015

Adv G Breytenbach (DA) to ask the Minister of Justice and Correctional Services:

What amount did (a) his department and (b) entities reporting to him spend on advertising in The New Age newspaper in the (i) 2011-12, (ii) 2012-13 and (iii) 2013-14 financial years? NW1247E

REPLY

The Department of Justice and Constitutional Development has placed advertisements in The New Age Newspaper through the GCIS to the value of R1 409 452.27 between the period 2012/2013 and 2014/2015 financial years. Media buying has been centralised at the GCIS to take advantage of bulk buying in terms of cost containment measures.
The National Prosecuting Authority placed a recruitment advertisement in the New Age in June 2013 only, for the amount of R18 400.

Legal Aid South Africa’s total advertising expenditure on The New Age Newspaper for the last three financial years is as follows:

New Age Advertising
FY 2012/13	FY 2013/14	FY 2014/15
R 0.00	R 62 928.00 (16 Days of Activism)	R66 758.40 (Human Rights Month)
Grand Total over three years		R129 686.40

Other entities such as the Magistrate’s Commission and the Board for Sheriffs have not advertised in The New Age Newspapers.

Reply received: April 2015

PARLIAMENTARY QUESTION NO: 1072

DATE OF QUESTION: 27 MARCH 2015

DATE OF SUBMISSION: 10 APRIL 2015

Mr MGP Lekota (Cope) to ask the Minister of Justice and Correctional Services:

(1) Whether, in the interest of transparency, democracy, integrity of elections and people-centredess, the Government is now ready to introduce legislation to govern the disclosure of private funding of political parties; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details;

(2) Whether he will make a statement on the necessity for such legislation to promote and preserve the health of our democracy?

Reply

& (2) The administration of the Public Funding of Represented Political Parties Act, 1997 (Act No.103 of 1997), which deals with the public funding of political parties, as the short title indicates, was transferred to the Minister of Home Affairs in September 2012. The Minister of Home Affairs is, in my opinion, better placed to deal with a question of this nature. I would therefore like to suggest that the Honourable member directs this question to the Minister of Home Affairs.

Despite the above, I must point out that the Constitutional Court, in the matter of My Vote Counts vs the Speaker of the National Assembly and Others, is currently seized with the question whether political parties should not be legally compelled to disclose information on their private funders and the sums of money donated. I understand that judgment is pending in the matter. It might therefore be prudent to await the judgment of the Court in this matter.

Reply received: March 2015

PARLIAMENTARY QUESTION NO: 1064

DATE OF QUESTION: 20 MARCH 2015

DATE OF SUBMISSION: 03 APRIL 2015

Mr W Horn (DA) to ask the Minister of Justice and Correctional Services:

How many cases has been finalised via the Court-Annexed Mediation system in the (a) Gauteng and (b) North West provinces since 1 January 2015;
Whether the programme will be expanded to the other provinces; if so, what are the relevant details? NW1225E

Reply:

Let me first highlight to the Honourable Member and the House that the Court-Annexed Mediation Programme is a new innovation into our legal system through which we seek to widen access to justice, in particular for the poor members of society who cannot afford the huge costs associated with litigation.

Let me also bring to the attention of this House that the Court-Annexed Rules were promulgated on 1 December 2014, and we launched of the new dispensation officially only recently, that is on 16 February 2015 in Mahikeng. We are still at an early stage of these revolutionary developments into our legal system which are aimed at revolutionalising the system which up to now has been purely adversarial. Primarily, mediation is preceded by an exchange of documents and liaison between the parties to a disputes before the mediator is eventually appointed to mediate over the dispute. Therefore in view of the time limits in the system, there are no matters that have reached the final stage in the step-by-step mediation procedure yet. Statistics of cases registered and finalized through the mediation processes will be captured in our quarterly and annual reports in order to show the business case of these interventions.

We have also placed on the Department’s website and the notice boards of the courts where mediation services are offered, charts that explain these steps-by-step mediation procedure as part of the awareness raising. A total of 231 mediators who meet the qualification requirements have been accredited and are also enlisted on the website and the lists are also kept by the mediation clerk at the court.

The rollout of the Court-Annexed Mediation Programme to other provinces is linked to the rollout of the rationalization of magisterial districts’ project, which seeks to align magisterial districts to municipal and provincial boundaries. As the Honourable member may be aware, new magisterial districts in respect of Gauteng and North West province were implemented on 1 December 2014. The rollout to the other provinces is planned as follows:

Limpopo and Mpumalanga provinces: 1 August 2015
Eastern Cape and KwaZulu Natal provinces: 1 April 2016
Free State, Northern and Western Cape: 1 August 2016

The staggered approach to the implementation of both the rationalization of courts and court-annexed mediation is informed by the massive capacity that must be injected into the courts mainly in the form of additional personnel and the improvement of the court infrastructure to provide a conducive and friendly environment for mediation. Part of this capacity entails the recruitment of law graduates and paralegals who have been enrolled on the mediation internship programme and trained as mediation clerks. A total of 55 were appointed for the initial phase of the programme and we aim to increase the number of the intake in the coming financial year. In this way we seek to contribute in easing the high rate of unemployment.

Reply received: April 2015

PARLIAMENTARY QUESTION NO: 1023

DATE OF QUESTION: 20 MARCH 2015

DATE OF SUBMISSION: 03 APRIL 2015

Mr W Horn (DA) to ask the Minister of Justice and Correctional Services:

What has been done in preparation for the establishment of the national forum envisioned by chapter 10 of the Legal Practice Act, Act 28 of 2014;
Has he advised the President on a date for the commencement of the provisions of chapter 10 of the specified Act? NW1183E

Reply:

I wish to inform the Honourable Member that the process requesting various constituent bodies in the legal profession to designate members to the National Forum on the Legal Profession (National Forum) in terms of Section 96(1) of the Legal Practice Act 28 of 2014 (the Act) commenced during the month of December 2014. Furthermore, a project team comprising of officials from various units of the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development has been put in place to coordinate the establishment of the National Forum. The Department has already received 19 names for designation to the National Forum by those constituency bodies as required by the Act. The Minister has also designated two (2) members to the National Forum in accordance with Section 96(1) (c) of the Act, which designation was recently supported by Cabinet. The Department is finalising constitution of the National Forum and preparations are already underway to have the first meeting and launch of the National Forum take place on Tuesday, 31 March 2015.
The Honourable Member would note that the proclamation by the President in which notice is given on the commencement of Parts 1 and 2 of Chapter 10 of the Act was published on 23 January 2015. It was published under Notice No.R.2 in Government Gazette NO.38412 for easy of reference.

Reply received: March 2015

PARLIAMENTARY QUESTION NO: 999

DATE OF QUESTION: 20 MARCH 2015

DATE OF SUBMISSION: 03 APRIL 2015

Mr J Selfe (DA) to ask the Minister of Justice and Correctional Services:

Whether prosecution in respect of an investigation conducted by the Special Investigating Unit (SIU) into allegations of corruption in the Department of Correctional Services as mandated by Proclamation R44 of 2007 has commenced; if not, (a) why not and (b) when will such prosecution commence; if so, what progress was made to date? NW1159E

Reply:

I wish to inform the Honourable Member that there are more than 289 cases which were submitted to The Presidency as recommendations for criminal charges under Proclamation R44 of 2007. In taking that into consideration, and in response to the question by the Honourable Member, it is not clear within the question itself which specific matter I should respond to. It will assist me to respond to the question if the Honourable Member could be more specific regarding the matter to which he needs information for.

Reply received: April 2015

QUESTION NO: 998

Mr J Selfe (DA) to ask the Minister of Justice and Correctional Services:

Why were certain prisoners (details furnished), who are detained at Kgosi Mampuru II prison in Pretoria, permitted to interact in contravention of section 7(2)(a) of the Correctional Services Act, Act 111 of 1998? NW1158E

REPLY:

Section 7(2)(a) of the Correctional Services Act, Act No 111 of 1998 as amended, determines that sentenced offenders must be kept separate from persons awaiting trial or sentenced.

However, section 7(3) of the aforementioned legislation provides, that there may be departures from the provisions of subsection (2)(a) if such departures are approved by the Head of the Correctional Centre and effected under supervision of a correctional official and are undertaken for the purpose of providing development or support services or medical treatment, but under no circumstances may there be departures in respect of sleeping accommodation.

The mentioned remand detainee is detained in a single cell in the hospital section because of a specific court order, for ensuring his safety and security. On the other hand the mentioned sentenced offender is housed in the hospital section due to his condition and both are guarded by one correctional official but do not share sleeping accommodation as prescribed in section 7(3) of the Correctional Services Act (Act 111 of 1998).

Reply received: March 2015

PARLIAMENTARY QUESTION NO: 893

DATE OF QUESTION: 20 MARCH 2015

DATE OF SUBMISSION: 03 APRIL 2015

Adv G Breytenbach (DA) to ask the Minister of Justice and Correctional Services:

What amount was spent by (a) his department and (b) state entities reporting to him on (i) tickets and (ii) sponsorships on The New Age Breakfast Briefings for the last three financial years? NW1042E

Reply:

The Department of Justice and Constitutional Development held Breakfast briefing with The New Age in 2012/13financial year (21 May 2012). The amount spent for tickets/sponsorship was R 85 568.40. The Department booked 12 tables which consist of 10 delegates per table at R7923.00 excluding 10 percent discount)
(i) State entities have not spent any funds on tickets for New Age Breakfast Briefings.

State entities have not spent any funds on sponsorships for New Age Breakfast Briefings

Reply received: March 2015

PARLIAMENTARY QUESTION NO: 858

DATE OF QUESTION: 20 MARCH 2015

DATE OF SUBMISSION: 03 APRIL 2015

Ms P T van Damme (DA) to ask the Minister of Justice and Correctional Services:

Whether his department or the entities reporting to him provides any type of sponsorships; if not, what is his department’s position in this regard; if so, (a) what are the details of each sponsorship, (b) what is the value of each sponsorship, (c) when were each of these sponsorship deals undertaken and (d) when will each of the sponsorship deals end;
Whether his department or any of the entities reporting to him intends to enter into any type of sponsorship deal or contract in the (a) 2015-16 and (b) 2016-17 financial years; if not, why not; if so, (i) with whom will each sponsorship deal or contract be made, (ii) what will the terms of each of the sponsorship deals or contracts be, (iii) when will each of the sponsorship deals or contracts (aa) commence and (bb) end and (iv) what is the value of each of the sponsorship deals or contracts? NW1007E

Reply:

It is the policy of the Department to only allocate funds to activities directly associated with the implementation of its mandate. Projects are dealt with as partnerships with related agreements whereby the department partner with other entities/ individuals or companies with aligned objectives and plan projects together with each funding its own activities but coordinating activities to achieve an enhanced/superior goal. As such there is no utilization of sponsorship of activities in the department.
The Department and its entities do not have any plans to enter into any sponsorship.

Reply received: April 2015

QUESTION NO: 807

Dr P J Groenewald (FF Plus) to ask the Minister of Justice and Correctional Services:

(1) How many firearms of each separate (a) type and (b) calibre does his department own;

(2) whether it is a prerequisite for each correctional supervisory officer to bear a firearm while on duty; if not, which supervisory officers are then required to bear a firearm when on duty;

(3) whether every officer who bears a firearm while on duty is, in fact, in possession of a competency certificate, as required by the Firearms Control Act, Act 60 of 2000; if not, why not;

(4) which officers at the Lichtenburg Correctional Centre are in possession of a competency certificate to bear a firearm;

(5) whether he will make a statement on the matter? NW802E

REPLY:

(1)(a) & (b) See table below for number and types of firearms owned by the department:

TYPE	CALIBRE	TOTAL
Shotgun	12 Gauge Musler	1 835
Pistol	9mm Beretta / Z88	7 429
Pistol	9mm Glock Compact	1 996
Semi-Automatic Rifle	9mm SMG	12
Rifle	9mm BXP	25
Semi-Automatic Rifle	9mm UZI Submachine Gun	3
Rifle	7.62mm FN	3
Rifle	.22	87
Rifle	.308	1
Revolver	.32	20
Revolver	.38	1
Rifle	5.56mm – R4	517
Rifle	5.56mm - R5	142
Pistol	Air	36
Pistol	37mm Stopper	52
Pistol	Signal	150
Pistol	Gas	326
TOTAL	12 635

(2) No, it is not a prerequisite for each Correctional official to bear a firearm while on duty. Only Correctional officials deployed in certain crucial posts are required to bear firearms when on duty. Heads of Correctional Centres determine according to daily local circumstances how officials are to be armed for the execution of custodial duties. Firearms are issued to officials deployed in posts such as access control points outside Correctional Centres, during the escorting of offenders from Correctional Centres to courts, outside hospitals, patrol services around Correctional Centres and during the transportation of offenders to other Correctional Centres. Firearms are also issued to Community Corrections officials. Firearms are not issued to officials working inside Correctional Centres.

(3) No, not all officers who carry a firearm while on duty are in possession of a competency certificate as required by the Firearms Control Act due to the following reasons:

Not all of the officials who have been trained in the Firearm Skills Programme have received their competency certificates due to the backlog in the printing of certificates by the Safety and Security Sector Education and Training Authority (SASSETA).
Some of the officials do not have firearm competency certificates because they have not yet been trained due to the high number that need to be trained, a constrained training budget and shortages of resources and skilled firearm instructors in the Department. These would be the officials who were trained in the use of firearms prior to the promulgation of the Firearms Control Act.

However, all new recruits / learners that have been enrolled on the Corrections Services Learnership since the promulgation of the Firearms Control Act, have been trained in the Firearm Skills Programme. According to the Department’s records, a total number of 6010 learners and 3786 correctional officials have been trained on the Firearms Skills Programme from 2008 to date.

(4) Below is a list of Correctional Officials stationed at Lichtenburg with an indication of those who have firearm competency certificates:

NAME	YEAR TRAINED IN FIREARM
Nage MA	Trained in 2012
Robinson KJ	Trained in 2008
Peele LA	Trained in 2014
Mosiane TT	Trained in 2014
Mcloud DM	Trained in 2014
Abrams KA	Trained in 2014
Engelbrecht E	Trained in 2014
Molefagotla ME	Trained in 2007
Miller WD	Trained in 2008
Kgaje ME	Trained in 2012
Dipholo MW	Trained in 2012
Jamda TE	Trained in 2008
Mokgethi LJ	Trained in 2012
Opperman JPD	Trained in 2008
Baabua RE	Trained in 2012
Matlawe MW	Trained in 2012
Modisaemang AB	Trained in 2014
Kgabi OG	Trained in 2008
Botha SR	Trained in 2010

(5) No.

Reply received: March 2015

PARLIAMENTARY QUESTION NO: 796

DATE OF QUESTION: 13 MARCH 2015

DATE OF SUBMISSION: 27 MARCH 2015

Mr W Horn (DA) to ask the Minister of Justice and Correctional Services:

What total amount (a) was budgeted for the (i) development and (ii) implementation of the Integrated Justice System (IJS) since it was announced and (b) has been spent on the IJS to date;
What progress has been made with the achievement of the development of (a) an architectural plan clearly defining the integration of the justice system which takes into account the existing systems within each department, (b) a virtual private network for the four departments involved in the IJS to provide the necessary security and stability of the network, (c) a common method of identifying persons, cases and key business requirements in each of the departments and the Automated Fingerprint Identification System (AFIS), (d) a court and case management system that includes docket management, case tracking facilities, event notification, inmate tracking and resource scheduling, (e) data warehousing facilities, supported by business intelligence functions and (f) providing access to electronic information and technology infrastructure in all four departments;
How many criminal cases have been dealt with from start to finish via the IJS? NW946E

Reply:

(1)

The total Budget for (i) IJS Development budget and (ii) Implementation Budget was R3 817 292 000 for the period 2007/8 to 2014/15 financial years. Budget allocation was not split between development and implementation.
An amount of R 3 039 818 000 has been spent on the IJS programme for the period 2007/8 to 2014/15 financial years.

It is important to note the budget was split between two Vote Accounts i.e. DOJCD and SAPS. DOJCD Expenditure is R 959 602 000 and SAPS Expenditure amounts to R 2 080 215 000.

Budget and Expenditure Context

In order to fully comprehend the figures above it is crucial to understand the implementation approach and cost drivers of the IJS Programme over the past years. The following narrative seeks to address the budget allocation and expenditure context:

The IJS Three Step Execution Strategy:

Step 1: Creating and/or upgrading departmental system capability to support and automate business process flow

This step focuses on the modernisation of core departmental systems, where possible the existing legacy systems are being modified to preserve the historic investment and to minimise the impact of the change process on the operational business. The second focus area of this step is to identify CJS business areas that are not supported with appropriate information system capabilities and provide for those requirements with significantly upgraded or new departmental systems.

Step 2: Integrating the Criminal Justice business process

This step entails creating the “connected up” or integrated justice system and is carried out within the IJS Transversal Hub. To execute this step of the programme strategy requires the agreement and development of communication and information sharing protocols (a common language of information exchange) and the establishment of a Cluster-wide information sharing infrastructure, commonly referred to as the hub infrastructure.

Having done that, the second component of this strategy step is to systematically identify the various inter-departmental information flow requirements arising from the CJS business process and enable the electronic exchange of this information as and when the corresponding departmental system capabilities have been prepared under step 1 of the strategy.

Step 3: Criminal Justice System end-to-end business performance measurement capability (known as the IJS BIS/GIS),

The establishment of the Transversal Infrastructure provides, for the first time, the means to develop a proper over-view of the performance of the CJS. Once information starts to flow between departments and business events within the CJS departments, the business event steps can be logged in the Transversal and used to create coherent Cluster-wide measure of the performance of the CJS. Historically this has not been readily achievable as each department had to varying degrees developed internal process measurements that did not readily link up with the other departmental measures due to issues of management focus and the lack of a common information sharing language. Step 3 of the strategy draws on the benefits of the Transversal Infrastructure and its underlying common language structure to provide an end-to-end CJS business performance measurement capability (known as the IJS Business Intelligence and Geographic Information System or IJS BI/GIS).

Notwithstanding the dependency of this step on the progress made under step 1 and 2 of the strategy, this step is as far as is possible also being run in parallel to step 2. As integrations enable information flow between the departments, these message flows become the source to gather key business performance information, which in turn is electronically collated to provide CJS business performance measures in order (where possible) to provide some short term performance measurement benefits to the Cluster, a number of interim data gathering processes have also been implemented.

Based on the above Execution Strategy is evident that most of the IJS Budget investment would initially focus on Step 1 as the fundamental building blocks for the envisaged integration of the Criminal Justice System. To this end, a significant amount of budgeted funds was utilized to fund the acquisition and development of the building blocks. These typically include investment in IT Infrastructure i.e. Servers, Storage, Network infrastructure, Hardware (PC’s, Scanners, Printers, biometric readers etc.). Other significant cost drivers include skills acquisition across all 3 steps, Software development and licenses as well as other technology tools required to execute the Programme.

(2)

(i). The IJS Architecture has been successfully developed and adopted by all departments participating in the IJS programme. All project related to IJS uses this Architecture as a reference model for the development of their integration systems. The Service Oriented Architecture (SOA) approach is being used to build interfaces with all departments through the common integration platform called the IJS Transversal Hub. The departments continue to use and leverage their existing systems for integration with IJS. These systems are continuously being modernized by the departments to keep them current and updated so that they can exchange vital CJS information with other departments that are participating in IJS.

(ii). The Virtual Private Network (VPN) for running the core applications in Department is the responsibility of each Department’s IT divisions and all participating departments have the VPN established according to the best practices in terms of security standards. Regular upgrades are being undertaken across the board as and when the budget allows to improve on network and applications stability. IJS Programme only focuses on ensuring security of the IJS Transversal Hub and also define the security standards for integration/interfaces in terms of firewall, encryption etc.

(iii). With regard to person management, it is important to note that in order to uniquely identify persons in the CJS, we must be able to link all information known about the person i.e. cases, criminal records, finger prints, photo graphs, wanted status, bail status, evidence etc. before a unique number can be created. This calls for a total revamp of the architecture within SAPS to first build internal interfaces to link all systems dealing with person information i.e. AFIS, CRIM, CAS, NPIS, Live Scan system etc. Another prerequisite is the overhaul of the Booking Process which incorporates a multimodal biometric (Finger prints, Iris and facial recognition) to ensure that as much as possible is captured at a point of arrest. Currently, the Person Architecture Conceptual model has been designed and currently undergoing review at SAPS. Once approved by SAPS the development of all affected systems will commence and the unique key called Unique Person Identifier will be defined and incorporated in the systems development.

Significant inroads have been made in terms of case management in that there is a single source for case number creation to identify cases across the cluster. The Unique Reference Number (URN) is currently generated by the Integrated Case Management System (ICMS) in DOJCD and that is the only reference number used to identify cases across the board.

In terms of ID verification the first phase of the Person Identity Verification Application (PIVA 1) has been successfully developed, tested and piloted. The rollout planning and execution will be completed once the necessary Standard Operating Procedures (SOP’s) have been signed off. With regard to common business requirements for AFIS (PIVA 2), work is currently underway in consultation with the CSIR to define the specification for the Civilian AFIS in DHA, which will incorporate the business requirements of SAPS and DCS. SAPS are also in the process of upgrading their criminal AFIS system which will interface with DHA.

(iv). The ICMS system referred to above has been successfully implemented in all Magistrate Courts across the country as a core system for case management as well as for integration with other CJS departments. This system currently integrates with SAPS’s CAS system thereby enabling electronic transmission of docket information from SAPS to DOJCD. You would recall that when the rollout of the case integrations started 2012/13 we targeted and actually delivered the solution to 20 Courts and 99 Police stations in all nine Provinces. To date we have delivered the Solution to 627 Courts and 1153 SAPS Police stations across the country. We are now in the process of rolling out further enhancements of the Case Integration Solution to include the NPA’s Electronic Case Management System (ECMS) in 22 Courts by the 31st March 2015. This solution includes the introduction of the Electronic Charge Sheet for the first time in South Africa. Inmate tracking will be delivered as part of DCS’s Integrated Inmate Management system currently being piloted by DCS. Once the unique person identifier stated supra is completed, the person tracking solution which integrates all detention management systems in the cluster will be implemented.

(v). With regard to data warehousing and business intelligence, we have now successfully developed the IJS Data Warehouse which also serves as a common data store for statistical purposes within the Cluster. We have also successfully developed and tested a state of the Performance Dashboard which is both a Geographic Information System (BIS) and a Business Intelligence System (BIS). To date we have deployed to production 14 of the 28 KPI’s on the BIS/GIS solution. This solution enables the Cluster Leadership to measure the performance CJS using real production data to inform effective decision-making and capacity planning. This is another ground-breaking achievement of the IJS Programme which we see as a tangible game changer. We are happy to demonstrate the system to members of Parliament at your earliest convenience.

There are currently eight (8) Departments/state entities participating in the IJS, that is:
- South African Police Service (SAPS)
- Department of Justice and Constitutional Development (DoJCD)
- National Prosecuting Authority (NPA)
- Department of Home Affairs (DHA)
- Department of Correctional Services (DCS)
- Department of Social Development (DSD)
- Legal Aid South Africa (Legal Aid SA)
- Office of the Chief Justice (OCJ)

To date, inter-departmental systems integration has been enabled in 5 of the 8 IJS Departments listed above i.e. SAPS, NPA, DOJCD, DHA and Legal Aid SA to exchange vital information via the IJS Transversal hub.

(3) The IJS Business Intelligence system was designed precisely to be able to provide the essential data for reporting including providing and answer to this question, however at this stage because the system has only recently been cut-over to production. Only limited data can be provided by the system. For a period of 12 months from February 2014 to Jan 2015, cases completed from start to finish are 664558.

Reply received: April 2015

QUESTION NO: 781

Mr J Selfe (DA) to ask the Minister of Justice and Correctional Services:

Whether the investigation into allegations against a certain official (details furnished) of the Department of Correctional Services in KwaZulu-Natal has been completed; if not, (a) why not and (b) when is it expected to be completed; if so, what are the findings of the investigation? NW931E

REPLY

The investigation into allegations made against the official has not been completed.

A number of follow-up visits must still be conducted.
Given the nature of any investigation it is difficult to say when such an investigation will be completed.

Reply received: April 2015

QUESTION NO: 780

Mr J Selfe (DA) to ask the Minister of Justice and Correctional Services:

Whether, with reference to his reply to question 31 on 12 September 2014, the investigation into the awarding of the contract for the supply of electronic monitoring devices has been completed; if not, (a) why not and (b) when is it expected to be completed; if so, what are the findings of the investigation? NW930E

REPLY:

The investigation has not been completed yet, (a) because the investigating team has requested to interview more officials who it is believed will shed more information and (b) the investigation is expected to be completed by end April.

Reply received: April 2015

QUESTION NO: 779

Mr J Selfe (DA) to ask the Minister of Justice and Correctional Services:

(a) What (i) progress has been made and (ii) challenges encountered in the implementation of the organisational re-alignment exercise in (aa) the branch structures and (bb) regions of the Department of Correctional Services and (b) when will the exercise be completed? NW929E

REPLY:

(a)(i) In a series of consultative meetings in the Department a blue print of organisational structure (functional) for the following were developed:

Correctional Facilities;
Branch: Community Corrections; and
Branch: Remand Detention

The process of determining the post establishment for these functional structures is currently underway. It was essential to prioritize the finalisation of the organisational structure for the Correctional Facilities since they represent the heart of the Department. It was also necessary to ensure that the new Branches comprising of Community Corrections and Remand Detention are finalised in order to determine their post provisioning measures.

Significant progress was also made with the organisational re-alignment of other Branches and Offices of Regional and Management Areas.

(a)(ii)(aa) &(bb) Delays were experienced with the process of the organisational structure re-alignment and these delays are attributed to the following:

Since the process of organisational re-alignment was commenced with, leadership change became a reality in the Department.

Competing organisational demands such as the need to review current staffing ratios and shift patterns has also affected the process of organisational re-alignment.

In view of the current process, the Organisational Structures for the Correctional Facilities, Branch: Remand Detention and Branch: Community Corrections would be finalised by end of June 2015. It is also the plan that the required additional funding would be determined and ready for inclusion in the BID process for 2016/17 and Medium Team Expenditure Framework.

Work has already been done for the Organisational Structures for the other Branches, Offices of Regional Commissioners and Management Areas and such structures are aimed for finalisation by 30 September 2015.

Reply received: March 2015

PARLIAMENTARY QUESTION NO: 761

DATE OF QUESTION: 13 MARCH 2015

DATE OF SUBMISSION: 27 MARCH 2015

The Leader of the Opposition (DA) to ask the Minister of Justice and Correctional Services:

With reference to the reply by the Minister of Police to oral question 322 on 7 December 2014, (a) in which court is the matter regarding case number CAS 123/03/2014 currently being heard, (b) when was the matter first brought to court and (c) is the matter still currently before the court;
What are the names of the prosecutors currently in charge of the case? NW911E

Reply:

In response to question 1 ((a)(b)(c)) and question 2, The National Prosecuting Authority has not yet received the matter from the police.

Reply received: March 2015

PARLIAMENTARY QUESTION NO: 670

DATE OF QUESTION: 13 MARCH 2015

DATE OF SUBMISSION: 27 MARCH 2015

Dr P J Groenewald (FF Plus) to ask the Minister of Justice and Correctional Services:†

What is the compensation paid so far to a certain person (name furnished) for services rendered to the Seriti Commission of Inquiry into the Acquisition of defence equipment and (b) what is the specified amount of each service rendered by the said person in the above-mentioned matter;
Whether he will make a statement on the matter? NW801E

Reply:

(a) The compensation paid to Advocate SM Lebala by the Arms Procurement Commission is R10 925 475,00 for services rendered from the commencement of the Commission up to and including 30 September 2014.

(b) Advocate SM Lebala, SC is engaged by the Arms Procurement Commission to render services as a Senior Evidence Leader, and has been compensated solely for rendering this service. His scope does not extend to any other services.

No, I will not make a statement on this matter, as the matter is being answered now in a Parliamentary question.

Reply received: March 2015

PARLIAMENTARY QUESTION NO: 664

DATE OF QUESTION: 13 MARCH 2015

DATE OF SUBMISSION: 27 MARCH 2015

Mr M G P Lekota (Cope) to ask the Minister of Justice and Correctional Services:

Whether, in the interest of transparency, democracy, integrity of elections and people-centredness, the Government is now ready to introduce legislation to govern the disclosure of private funding of political parties; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details;
Whether he will make a statement on the necessity for such legislation to promote and preserve the health of our democracy? NW795E

Reply:

& (2) The administration of the Public Funding of Represented Political Parties Act, 1997 (Act No.103 of 1997), which deals with the public funding of political parties, as the short title indicates, was transferred to the Minister of Home Affairs in September 2012. The Minister of Home Affairs is, in my opinion, better placed to deal with a question of this nature. I would therefore like to suggest that the Honourable member directs this question to the Minister of Home Affairs.

Reply received: May 2015

QUESTION NO: 531
Mr S C Motau (DA) to ask the Minister of Justice and Correctional Services:

Whether any employees in his department have been on suspension with full salary since 1 January 2014; if so, (a) how many employees and (b) what is the total cost thereof?
NW611E

Yes.

(a) 419 employees were suspended during the period 1 January 2014 up to 31 January 2015.

(b) The total cost as at 31 January 2015 was R25 688 503.70

REGION '	NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES SUSPENDED SINCE 1 JANUARY 2014	QUANTUM PAID TO EMPLOYEES ON PRECAUTIONAY SUSPENSION
Head Office	5	R1 140 680.00
Limpopo/Mpumalanga/ North West	31	R1 449 536.00
Gauteng	53	R409 658.00
Free State & Northern Cape	54	R1 546 343.00
Eastern Cape	37	R1 694 889.00
Western Cape	63	R3 079 166.00
KZN	176	R16 368 231.70
TOTAL	419	R25 688 503.70

Reply received: April 2015

QUESTION NO: 469

Dr P J Groenewald (FF Plus) to ask the Minister of Justice and Correctional Services:

(1) How many prisoners in prisons countrywide in (a) 2010, (b) 2011 , (c) 2012, (d) 2013 and (e) 2014 were classified as (i) black, (ii) white, (iii) Indian, (iv) brown and (v) foreign in each specified year;

(2) whether he will make a statement on the matter? NW547E

REPLY:

Inmates in correctional centres are not classified according to their races nor their countries of origin. The different categories of sentenced offenders in the table hereunder are disclosed by the individuals during their admission at correctional centres and are not verified:

Average For Calendar Years	(i) Black	(ii) White	(iii) Asian	(iv) Coloured	(v) Foreign nationals
(a) Average for 2010	90520	2167	624	20296	4999
(b) Average for 2011	89796	2147	619	20213	5856
(c) Average for 2012	85828	1989	607	18022	5437
(d) Average for 2013	87840	1967	642	18437	5496
(e) Average for 2014	92145	2013	706	19727	6150

(2) No statement will be made in this regard.

Reply received: March 2015

PARLIAMENTARY QUESTION NO: 390

DATE OF QUESTION: 06 MARCH 2015

DATE OF SUBMISSION: 20 MARCH 2015

Mr D J Maynier (DA) to ask the Minister of Justice and Correctional Services:

Whether, in light of his statement in the National Assembly on 18 February 2014, he envisages the SA National Defence Force being employed to combat disruptions or threats of disruptions in the National Assembly; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details? NO449E

REPLY

My comment in the National Assembly on 18 February 2015, (I presume the question is mistakenly referring to 2014) should be seen in context. On ceremonial and other occasions the SA National Defense Force (SANDF) is already employed at Parliament. So they are not being precluded from being used at Parliament when required.

The Constitution, 1996, further indicates that Parliament must conduct its business in an open manner, but may take reasonable measures to regulate public access and provide for the searching of any person or where appropriate the refusal of entry of any person (see Section 59 of the Constitution in relation to the National Assembly and Section 72 of the Constitution in relation to the National Council of Provinces).

In addition, in terms of section 4(1) of the Powers, Privileges and Immunities of Parliament and Provincial Legislatures Act, 2004 (Act 4 of 2004) (the PPI Act), members of the security services may enter the precincts to perform any function with the permission and under the authority of the Speaker or the Chairperson. "Security services" means the security services referred to in section 199 (1) of the Constitution, which indicates that: “The security services of the Republic consist of a single defence force, a single police service and any intelligence services established in terms of the Constitution.”

However, it should also be borne in mind that when there is immediate danger to the life or safety of any person or damage to any property, Section 4(2) of the PPI Act provides that members of the security services (therefore including, if required, the SANDF) may without obtaining such permission enter upon and take action in the precincts in so far as it is necessary to avert that danger. Any such action must as soon as possible be reported to the Speaker and the Chairperson.

Reply received: March 2015

PARLIAMENTARY QUESTION NO: 386

DATE OF QUESTION: 06 MARCH 2015

DATE OF SUBMISSION: 20 MARCH 2015

Mr M H Redelinghuys (DA) to ask the Minister of Justice and Correctional Services:

How far has the decision-making process progressed with regard to instituting criminal prosecution against Mr Richard Mdluli for corruption? NO440E

REPLY

I am advised that, the prosecuting team, appointed by the NDPP to look into the matter and advise him following the SCA decision, met with the NDPP on 23 February 2015 to brief him on the status of the matter they have requested a period of about 6 (six) weeks to finalise the matter and thereafter advise the NDPP of their recommendations.

Reply received: March 2015

PARLIAMENTARY QUESTION NO: 385

DATE OF QUESTION: 27 FEBRUARY 2015

DATE OF SUBMISSION: 13 MARCH 2015

Mr W Horn (DA) to ask the Minister of Justice and Correctional Services: [ê34] [Question submitted for oral reply now placed for written reply because in excess of quota [Rule 108(8)]]

(a) What progress has been made with the Inge Lotz matter and (b) is the matter still being attended to? NW439E

REPLY

The matter was finalised in December 2013. Attached as an Annexure to this reply is the media statement that The NPA issued at that time regarding the matter.

Reply received: March 2015

QUESTION NO: 331

Mr W Horn (DA) to ask the Minister of Justice and Correctional Services:

How many juvenile (a) remand and (b) sentenced detainees were in the country’s detention facilities (i) in the (aa) 2009-10, (bb) 2010-11, (cc) 2011-12, (dd) 2012-13 and (ee) 2013-14 financial years and (ii) from 1 April 2014 up to the latest specified date for which information is available? NW357E

REPLY:

The number of juvenile remand detainees (18–21 years) in *DCS Facilities for the following financial years are indicated in the table below:-

AVERAGE NUMBER OF JUVENILES (18 < 21 YEARS)
Financial Year	Unsentenced (Remand)	Sentenced
(i) (aa) 2009/2010	8300	8820
(bb) 2010/2011	9462	10265
(cc) 2011/2012	8422	9689
(dd) 2012/2013	8036	7689
(ee) 2013/2014	7163	7904
(ii) 2014/2015 (1 April 2014 to 30 September 2014)	6529	7536

* The information above is juveniles in the Department of Correctional Services (DCS) Facilities only, not Department of Social Development (DSD) or South African Police Services (SAPS) Facilities.

Reply received: March 2015

PARLIAMENTARY QUESTION NO: 381

DATE OF QUESTION: 06 MARCH 2015

DATE OF SUBMISSION: 20 MARCH 2015

Dr M S Motshekga (ANC) to ask the Minister of Justice and Correctional Services:

(a) By when does he intend to re-introduce the Traditional Courts Bill [B1-2012] and (b) which sectors will be consulted to ensure that it becomes representative of the aspirations of the people of South Africa? NO404E

REPLY

I intend to introduce a revised Traditional Courts Bill into Parliament towards the end of the 2015 session of Parliament, around November 2015 or as soon as possible thereafter.
The Bill will be preceded by a dialogue with all stakeholders and the broad public. The outcomes of this dialogue will inform the contents of the revised Bill. The dialogue and the contents of the Bill will be communicated with women’s groups, rural communities, traditional leaders, academics, the legal profession and representatives of civil society, in particular, in addition to being made available for general public consultation.

Reply received: March 2015

QUESTION NO: 207

Ms T K Litchfield-Tshabalala (EFF) to ask the Minister of Justice and Correctional Services:

What factors particularly to the cases of Mr Eugene de Kock, who tortured and murdered black activists in the 1980s and early 1990s, and Mr Clive Derby Lewis were considered in releasing Mr Eugene de Kock on parole over Mr Clive Derby Lewis? NW224E

REPLY:

It should be noted that Mr Eugene De Kock was granted parole on 30 January 2015, this was after his earlier application was declined in July 2014 for his victims to be given an opportunity to make representations before placement on parole was decided upon. The Minister had noted positive reports about Mr De Kock’s conduct in custody and the constant help he was providing to the Missing Persons Task Team in recovering the remains of his victims. The placement of Mr De Kock on parole was in the interest of reconciliation and nation building.

Offender Derby-Lewis is serving a life sentence for killing prominent anti-apartheid leader and South African Communist Party leader Chris Hani. The offender’s medical reports indicated that he has stage IIIb of lung cancer which does not qualify an offender for placement on medical parole as prescribed by the law. There is nothing to suggest that the offender’s condition is such that he is rendered physically incapacitated as a result of injury, disease or illness so as to severely limit daily activity or self-care as provided for by the law. Legislation on placement on medical parole requires an offender to be in more severe stage of illness, which in a case of lung cancer should be a stage IV. There were also serious discrepancies in the samples used for offender Derby-Lewis’ application. It is for these reasons that he was not placed on medical parole.

It should be noted that Mr De Kock applied for and was granted parole in terms of sections 78(1), 136 of Correctional Services Act, 111 of 1998, read with section 65(5) of Correctional Services Act, 8 of 1959 whilst Offender Derby Lewis had applied for medical parole in terms of Section 79 of the Correctional Matters Amendment Act, Act 5 of 2011 and it was denied in line with Correctional Services Regulations (Reg 29A).

Reply received: March 2015

PARLIAMENTARY QUESTION NO: 88

DATE OF QUESTION: 12 FEBRUARY 2015

DATE OF SUBMISSION: 26 FEBRUARY 2015

Mr M H Redelinghuys (DA) to ask the Minister of Justice and Correctional Services:

What is the current status of case number 7/2-48637/11, investigated by the Office of the Public Protector;
When is the investigation expected to be finalised? NW90E

REPLY

In terms of section 181(2) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 (“the Constitution”) the Public Protector is independent and subject only to the Constitution and the law. Further in terms of Section 181(5) of the Constitution the Public Protector is accountable to the National Assembly and must report on its activities and the performance of its functions to the Assembly at least once a year. It will, therefore, not be prudent for the Minister of Justice and Correctional Services to respond to the Honourable member’s question. The Honourable member should approach the Public Protector directly or approach the Justice and Correctional Services Committee of the National Assembly in this regard.

Reply received: March 2015

QUESTION NO: 87

Mr M H Redelinghuys (DA) to ask the Minister of Justice and Correctional Services:

Whether certain persons (details furnished), that are currently serving sentences at Pretoria Central Prison, are eligible for (i) parole in terms of section 73 of the Correctional Services Act, Act 111 of 1998 or (ii) early release, under correctional supervision, in terms of section 276A(3)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act, Act 51 of 1977; if so, in either instance, (a) has the process been initiated and (b) when is it anticipated to be finalised? NW89E

REPLY:

For purposes of this reply the person mentioned in the first instance will be listed as offender 1 and the second one will be named offender 2.

(i) Yes, the first mentioned offender is eligible for parole consideration. He was considered by the Correctional Supervision and Parole Board (CSPB) on 21 January 2014 and was given a further profile and he will again be considered for possible placement on parole on 25 February 2015.

The offender mentioned in the second instance is also eligible for parole consideration and was first considered after completion of a 1/3 (third) of his 57 year sentence of imprisonment in terms of the previous Correctional Services Act, Act 8 of 1959 by CSPB at Kgoši Mampuru II Correctional Centre and was found not a suitable candidate for parole placement. He was considered again on 26 September 2014 and a further profile was approved by the CSPB for 26 September 2015.

(ii) Offender 1 was sentenced to an effective sentence of thirty (30) years imprisonment on 06 March 2000 for robbery aggravating and rape. Offender 2 is currently detained at Boksburg Correctional Centre and not at Kgoši Mampuru II Correctional Centre (formerly known as Pretoria Central Prison). He was sentenced on 02 April 1996 to an effective sentence of 57 years imprisonment for:

4 counts of robbery;
2 counts of escape;
1 count of attempted murder;
2 counts of murder;
4 counts of unlawful possession of fire-arm; and
3 counts of ammunition.

Both offenders are not suitable candidates for conversion of sentence into Correctional Supervision in terms of section 276 A(3) of the Criminal Procedure Act 51/1977 and they did not meet the criteria in terms of B- Order 1 chapter 26 paragraph 12.0 which states among others that an offender must not be regarded as a real danger to the society hence they were later considered for parole. In terms of B- Order 1 chapter 26 paragraph 11.1.3 (b) an offender does not qualify (to be referred to court a quo) for conversion of his/her sentence into Correctional Supervision as from the date on which he/she qualifies for consideration of parole placement (State vs Leeb SAcc425/89). This principle was also made clear in the Price judgment, that those offenders who were sentenced before 01 October 2004 may be considered for conversion on the date not more than 5 years before the minimum consideration date. However, a quarter still has to be served. According to Section 73(7) (e) of the Correctional Services Act, Act 111 of 1998, as amended, states that at least if an offender has served a quarter of the effective sentence the remainder of the sentence until sentence expiry does not exceed five (5)years, that such offender may be considered for conversion of sentence.

(a) Both offenders were already considered for possible placement on parole as they did not meet the criteria for consideration on conversion of sentence into correctional supervision in terms of B- Order 1 chapter 26 paragraph 12.0.

(b) Offender 1 will be reconsidered for placement on parole on 25 February 2015 and Offender 2 will be reconsidered not later than 26 September 2015.

Reply received: March 2015

PARLIAMENTARY QUESTION NO: 35

DATE OF QUESTION: 12 FEBRUARY 2015

DATE OF SUBMISSION: 26 FEBRUARY 2015

Adv G Breytenbach (DA) to ask the Minister of Justice and Correctional Services:

Whether the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (OPCAT) has been ratified; if not, why not; if so, when was it ratified;
Whether South Africa has submitted country reports to the UN Committee against Torture; if not, why not; if so, for which years? NW36E

REPLY

No. This matter is being considered by the Department. In the main the issue is about the creation of an appropriate National Preventative Mechanism (NPM), taking into account the existing mechanisms. After consultation with relevant Departments, Statutory Bodies, National Human Rights Institutions and Civil Society Organisations on the appropriate mechanism, the Department will approach Cabinet for a decision.
South Africa’s Report on the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment has recently been approved by Cabinet and will soon be deposited with the United Nations Human Rights Council through the appropriate channels..

Reply received: March 2015

QUESTION NO: 34

Adv. G Breytenbach (DA) to ask the Minister of Justice and Correctional Services:
(1)	Whether the former Minister of Correctional Services, Mr S Ndebele, visited the United States during June or July 2013; if so, (a) what was the purpose of his visit, (b) what (i) persons and (ii) institutions were visited, (c) by whom was he accompanied, and (d) what was the total cost of such visit;
(2)	whether, in the course of his visit (a) the former Minister or (b) any member of his entourage had any interactions with providers of electronic monitoring devices; if so (i) which provider(s), (ii) when, and (iii) with what outcome?

NW35E

Reply:

Yes the former Minister of Correctional Services, Mr S Ndebele visited the United States of America (USA) during June and July 2013.

The purpose of the visit was to see if DCS could develop policies aimed at reducing overcrowding in the South African Correctional Centres.

The visit afforded the Delegation the opportunity to see how the Authorities in the USA utilized the following :

Electronic Monitoring;
Parole system; and
Re integration of offenders into their communities.

Persons visited:

Mr Everett Bell – Sentinel Company;
Mr Michael Capra – Sing Sing; and

Dr.Mimi Silbert – Delancy Foundation.

Institutions visited:

Sentinel Company in Irvine Los Angeles, Mr Everett Bell;
Suffolk County community corrections centre;
Sing Sing Correctional Centre, Ossining, Westchester County – New York State of Corrections, Mr Michael Capra;
Rikers Island Correctional Centre;
Delancy Street Foundation, Brewster, New York;
College and Community Fellowship Program, New York; and
Federal Bureau of Prisons in New York.

Former Minister Ndebele was accompanied by:

Mrs. Ndebele
Ms. N. Jolingana – Chief Operating Officer
Mr. N. Nxele – Regional Commissioner Kwazulu-Natal
Ms P. Mathibela – Chief Deputy Commissioner Community Corrections
Ms. B. Mdhluli – Director International Relations
Mr. S. Maistry – Head of Communication (Ministry)
Ms. S. Mdletshe – PA to Minister
Mr. S. Mageba – Director Research

The total cost for the visit was R2 065.874

a) Yes,

b) The former Minister and delegation had interactions with the provider of electronic monitoring devices.

Sentinel
30 June 2013
The outcome of the visit to Sentinel was that the lessons learnt in that electronic monitoring is an effective and cost effective system and that it was important to benchmark with a world class operator.

Reply received: March 2015

QUESTION NO: 33

Mr J Selfe (DA) to ask the Minister of Justice and Correctional Services:

Whether any senior management members were (a) suspended or (b) dismissed in the KwaZulu-Natal Region of the Department of Correctional Services in the (i) 2012-13 financial year and (ii) during the period 1 January 2014 up to the latest specified date for which information is available; if so, (aa) how many, (bb) which members and (cc) for what reason, in each case? NW34E

REPLY:

Yes, the information is as follows:

(a)(i)(aa) None, however one (01) official had been on suspension since October 2011 and the suspension period included the 2012-13 financial year.

(a)(i)(bb) Makhaye DJ was suspended since October 2011

(a)(i)(cc) The official was suspended for dereliction of duties and insubordination.

(a)(ii)(aa) A total of three (03) were suspended including the official mentioned above

(a)(ii)(bb) The following were suspended:

Makhaye DJ
- Baxter JP
- Mdletye MA

(a)(ii)(cc) Dereliction of duties and insubordination;

Contravention of SMS handbook Chapter 7, Annexure A, Paragraph 1, 10,6,27 & 28;

Leaking departmental information;

(b)(i)(aa) None

(b)(i)(bb) N/A

(b)(i)(cc) N/A

(b)(ii)(aa) A total of two (02) were dismissed.

(b)(ii)(bb) The two (02) officials dismissed are:

Makhaye DJ
Baxter JP

(b)(ii)(cc) The reasons for dismissal are:

Dereliction of duties & insubordination;
- Contravention of SMS handbook Chapter 7, Annexure A, Paragraph 1, 10,6,27 & 28.

Reply received: March 2015

QUESTION NO: 32

Mr J Selfe (DA) to ask the Minister of Justice and Correctional Services:

Whether there are any delays in the appointment of additional community members of Correctional Supervision and Parole Boards (CSPBs); if so, (a) in respect of which CSPBs, (b) for what period have appointments been outstanding in each case, (c) for what reason and (d) what steps are being taken to make such permanent appointments? NW33E

REPLY:

(1) Yes. The details are as follows:

REGION	MANAGEMENT AREA	NUMBER OF VACANCIES	DATE OF VACANCY
Free state and Northern Cape	Bizzah Makhate	2	01 May 2014
	Colesburg	2	01 May 2014
	Groenpunt	2	01 May 2014
	Grootvlei	1	01 May 2014
	Kimberley	2	01 May 2014
	Upington	1	01 May 2014
Limpopo, Mpumalanga and North West	Barberton	2	01 July 2012
	Bethal	2	01 May 2012
	Klerksdorp	2	01 May 2012
	Polokwane	2	01 August 2014
	Rooigrond	2	01 May 2014
	Rustenburg	2	01 May 2012
	Thohoyandou	2	01 May 2014
	Witbank	2	01 May 2012
Gauteng	Boksburg	1	01 May 2014
	Johannesburg	2	01 May 2014
	Modderbee	2	01 May 2014
Eastern Cape Eastern Cape (continued)	Amathole	2	01 May 2014
	Cradock	2	01 May 2014
	Kirkwood	2	01 May 2014
	Lusikisiki	2	01 May 2014
	Mthatha	2	01 May 2014
	Sada	2	01 May 2014
	St Albans	2	01 May 2014
Western Cape	Allandale	1	01 December 2011
	Brandvlei	2	01 December 2011
	Breede River	2	01 December 2011
	Drakenstein	2	01 December 2011
	Goodwood	2	01 December 2011
	Overberg	1	01 April 2012
	Pollsmoor	2	01 December 2011
	Southern Cape	2	01 December 2011
	Voorberg	1	01 April 2012
	West Coast	2	01 December 2011
Kwa-Zulu Natal	Glencoe	2	01 February 2014
TOTAL VACANCIES	64

(c) As a result of various challenges associated with the HR benefits of Parole Board members, the department suspended the advertising and filling of these posts on 05 November 2014. It is also important to note that the Department, after obtaining guidance from the Department of Public Service and Administration as well as National Treasury, is in the process of appealing an arbitration award in the Labour Court. The award relates to the payment of 37% in lieu of benefits to Board member, which will have enormous financial implications for the organization.

(d) A Ministerial Task Team has been established to address the various challenges and are working closely with the Department of Public Service and Administration (DPSA) and National Treasury. As an interim measure, authority has been granted for the extension of the contract of Board members, whose contract has expired, on a month to month basis until further notice. The Department has also allowed that existing Board members function in nearby management areas where vacant posts exist.

Reply received: March 2015

PARLIAMENTARY QUESTION NO: 31

DATE OF QUESTION: 12 FEBRUARY 2015

DATE OF SUBMISSION: 26 FEBRUARY 2015

Mr J Selfe (DA) to ask the Minister of Justice and Correctional Services:

Whether any persons have been (a) charged or (b) convicted of offences under the Prevention and Combatting of Torture of Persons Act, Act 13 of 2013; if so, what was the nature of the offences;
Whether he has (a) taken any steps or (b) put any institutions in place to interdict the incidence of torture; if not, why not, in each case; if so, what (i) steps or (ii) institutions? NW32E

REPLY

(a) and (b). I have been informed that the National Prosecution Authority has not prosecuted any person as yet in terms of the Prevention and Combatting of Torture of Persons Act, 2013( Act 13 of 2013), that commenced on 29 July 2013.

(a) and (b). In view of the fact that acts that constitute torture in terms section 3 of the above Act, is clearly defined, it is recommended that the Honourable Member approach the Minister of Police for information in this regard.

Reply received: March 2015

QUESTION No: 15

DATE OF PUBLICATION: 12 February 2015

Mr E J Marais (DA) to ask the Minister of Public Enterprises:

(1) Whether, with reference to his reply to question 2217 on 9 December 2014, (a) why has the report not been tabled in the National Assembly and (b) when will the report be tabled in the National Assembly; (2) have the negotiations been concluded between Eskom and the insurers; if not, when will these negotiations be concluded; if so, what were the outcomes of these negotiations? NW16E

REPLY:

1(a)-(b) The common cause report on Duvha unit 3 boiler incident has been completed by Eskom and the insurers. There has been no request for the report to be tabled to the Portfolio Committee or the National Assembly and the honourable member is advised to follow the process to request tabling.

2. The property was assessed in a process led by the Insurer and the damaged property was identified and costs to recover were estimated. Eskom will soon be entering into negotiations with suppliers with the purpose of deciding on the supplier that will do the boiler repair. It is anticipated that all contracts for the repairs will be placed by end March 2015 and that the work will start soon after that.

Reply received: March 2015

PARLIAMENTARY QUESTION NO: 03

DATE OF QUESTION: 12 FEBRUARY 2015

DATE OF SUBMISSION: 26 FEBRUARY 2015

Mr M L W Filtane (UDM) to ask the Minister of Justice and Correctional Services:

Whether, given the current challenges confronting the Mthatha High Court in the Eastern Cape, which result from poor management of the court and a negative effect on the provision of judicial services to the citizens, he intends to intervene in order to reverse the decision to remove the appeals court from Mthatha to Grahams’ Town; if not, why not; if so, (a) when and (b) how;
Whether he intends to appoint more judges and locate the Eastern Cape Deputy Judge President to the Mthatha High Court; if so, what are the relevant details? NW4E

REPLY

I wish to draw Honourable Member Filtane’s attention to the provisions of Section 6(4) of the Superior Courts Act, 2013 which provides that if a Division has more than one local seat, the main seat of that Division has concurrent appeal jurisdiction of any local seat of that Division, and the Judge President of that Division may direct that an appeal against a decision of a single Judge or of a Magistrates’ Court within that area of jurisdiction may be heard at the main seat of the Division. I have been advised that there are discussions between the Eastern Cape Division of the High Court and the legal profession about the feasibility of moving full bench appeals from Mthatha High Court to Grahamstown. The Judge President has not made the decision yet to move the appeals to Grahamstown and this is a matter that solely lies within the Judiciary and has nothing to do with the Ministry.
Judges of the High Court are, in terms of Section 174(6) of the Constitution, 1996 appointed by the President on the advice of the Judicial Service Commission. Although the Minister is a member of the Judicial Service Commission, he has no powers to appoint Judges of the High Court. With regard to the question whether more Judges could be appointed in the Mthatha High Court, the Minister is empowered by Section 49 (1)(b) of the Superior Court Act, on the advice of the Chief Justice, to make regulations to be applied for determining the number of Judges to be appointed in the Supreme Court of Appeal and any Division of the High Court. These regulations are being prepared by the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development for the Minister’s consideration, so as to set a criteria for the extending the establishment of the Divisions of the High Court and will be used to determine whether there is a need to appoint more Judges to the Mthatha High Court.

2015-03-17

What's wrong with this page?