ATC120516: Report on Budget Vote 24, dated 16 May 2012

Justice and Correctional Services

Report of the Portfolio Committee on Justice and Constitutional Development on Budget Vote 24: Justice and Constitutional Development, dated 16 May 2012

Report of the Portfolio Committee on Justice and Constitutional Development on Budget Vote 24: Justice and Constitutional Development, dated 16 May 2012


The Portfolio Committee on Justice and Constitutional Development, having considered Budget Vote 24: Justice and Constitutional Development, reports as follows:


1. Introduction


1.1. The Budget Vote 24: Justice and Constitutional Development has five programmes. The Department of Justice and Constitutional Development is directly responsible for the Administration, Court Services and State Legal Services programmes. Programme 4 is the allocation to the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA). The NPA accounts separately for its spending (although the Director-General: Justice and Constitutional Development remains its accounting officer). Programme 5 contains the respective allocations to the auxiliary services, including transfer payments to Legal Aid South Africa (LASA), the Special Investigating Unit (SIU), the South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) and the Public Protector (PP).


1.2. The Department of Justice and Constitutional Development, the National Prosecuting Authority, Legal Aid South Africa , the Special Investigating Unit, the South African Human Rights Commission and the Public Protector each presented their revised strategic plans for the MTEF, their annual performance plans and their budgets for 2012/13. The briefings took place as follows:

· National Prosecuting Authority – 17 April 2012.

· Department of Justice and Constitutional Development – 18 and 19 April 2012.

· Special Investigating Unit, 20 April 2012.

· The Public Protector – 24 April 2012.

· Legal Aid South Africa – 8 May 2012.

· South African Human Rights Commission – 9 May 2012.


1.3. In October 2011, the Committee engaged extensively with all the bodies on their funding needs for the 2012/13 financial year. The Committee’s response and recommendations are contained in its November 2011 Budgetary Review and Recommendation report. The concerns expressed then by Committee should be regarded as integral to the Committee’s evaluation of this process. Also, the Committee recently undertook two oversight visits: the first to Bloemfontein and the second to Gauteng . Its findings are also pertinent to this process.


1.4. This report is divided in four parts:

· Part 1 provides an overview of the overall appropriation to the Vote for the medium term and notes additional amounts allocated as a result of the recommendations in the budgetary review and recommendation report.

· Part 2 gives key aspects of the Minister’s political overview and outlines the Department’s presentation to the Committee, focussing mostly on its achievements in the previous financial year, the key planned activities for 2012/13 and its challenges. The Committee’s response is also included.

· Part 3 summarises the NPA’s presentation to the Committee on its strategic and annual plans and on its budget. Similarly, the Committee’s response to the NPA’s presentation is set out here.

· Part 4 contains a summary of the presentations of LASA, the SIU, the SAHRC and the PP. The Committee’s discussion on the presentations is captured.

· Part 5 provides a summary of key reporting requirements and the Committee’s recommendation relating to the Vote.


1.5. All presentations referred to in Parts 2 - 4 can be obtained from the Committee Secretary.


Part I Vote 24: Justice and Constitutional Development


2. Overview of the Vote for the MTEF


Table 1: Overall programme allocation for the MTEF - 2011/12 – 2014/15


Budget 2011/12– 2014/15




Medium-term estimates

(R thousand)






1 686258

1762 562

1 853 292

1 962 437

Court Services

4 331 830

5 283 592

5 608 579

5 952 329

State Legal Services

721 387

768 156

806 831

851 841

National Prosecuting Authority

2 651 665

2 815 791

2 964 563

3 145 170

Auxiliary & Associated Services

2 190 059

2 448 506

2 580 696

2 709 389


11 581 199

13 078 607

13 813 961

14 621 166

Direct charge

(Judges and Magistrates’ salaries)

2 104 162

2 401 870

2 575 723

2 730 266


13 685 361

15 480 477

16 389 684

17 351 432


2.1. The main appropriation increases from R11.6 billion in 2011/12 to R13.1 billion in 2012/13. This amount does not include a direct charge against the National Revenue Fund of R2.4 billion for judges and magistrates’ salaries, which brings the overall appropriation for 2012/13 to R15.5 billion.


2.2. Although the overall allocation to the programmes within the Vote increases in 2012/13 by a nominal 12.9% compared to 2011/12, real growth is 6.64%.


2.3. An amount of R2.4 billion is allocated as a direct charge against the Vote for judges and magistrates salaries. Although magistrates’ salaries show real growth (22.6%), the amount allocated for judges’ salaries decreases in real terms (by 22%).


2.4. An amount of R253 million is added to the Department’s and NPA’s baseline for 2012/13. Additional amounts are for court infrastructure (R100 million) and improved conditions of service (R167.6 million).The Department, however, has made R14.4 million available to LASA from its baseline for carry through costs of the Children’s Act and Child Justice Act.


2.5. A cumulative amount of R152.1 million is allocated to the independent bodies in addition to their baselines. The bulk goes to the SIU and the Public Protector for increased investigative capacity (R100 million and R15 million respectively) and, as mentioned above, to LASA for the carry through costs of the Children’s Act and Child Justice Act (R14.4 million). The remainder is for improved conditions of service.


2.6. A total amount of R41 million is set aside for priority projects in 2012/13. Specifically, R16 million is for the Commission of Enquiry: Strategic Defence Procurement Package; R2.5 for the Assessment of the impact of the decisions of the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court of Appeal on South African law and jurisprudence; and R22.4 million is for the transformation of State Legal Services.


Part 2 Department of Justice and Constitutional Development


3. Political overview of Vote 24


3.1. The Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development, Mr J Radebe, presented a strategic overview of the Vote.


3.2. The following are key strategic priorities:


3.2.1. Strengthening the legislative framework that governs the judicial system: The Constitutional Seventeenth Amendment Bill and Superior Courts Amendment Bill, which are both before National Assembly, are vital in this regard. Legislation that the Department intends introducing soon includes the Legal Practice Bill, which is at certification stage.


3.2.2. Promoting and implementing policy initiatives aimed at transformation of the justice system. Specific activities include:

· A discussion document on the transformation of the judicial system and the role of the judiciary in the developmental South African State has been published for public comment.

· An assessment of the impact of the decisions of the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court of Appeal on the South African law and jurisprudence will be conducted once a service provider is appointed.

· A discussion document on the transformation of State Legal Services is to be released shortly for comment.


3.2.3. Increasing access to justice services. The following programmes and activities are key to this priority:

· JCPS Cluster Delivery agreement, which includes the fight against crime and corruption.

· Reform of the civil justice system.

· Court-based mediation.

· Continued focus on the Master’s Office to address challenges and to expand service points for the Guardian’s Fund.

· Continuing to implement the recommendations flowing from the Truth and Reconciliation process. There has been some progress with identifying the outstanding beneficiaries and with the payment of reparations.

· Putting in place measures to monitor court performance together with the judiciary. There has been some progress in this regard, including increased awareness from judges of the need to effectively implement case-flow management.

· Continued focus on strengthening provision of maintenance services.

· Addressing problems relating to document management. The problem of missing records, including at the South Gauteng High Court is receiving focussed attention.


3.2.4. Enhancing the swiftness and quality of justice services. Initiatives to achieve this include:

· Increasing the numbers of magistrates appointed.

· Delivering training for judicial officers.

· Ensuring that vacant posts are filled, especially in the NPA. The Minister also mentioned that the matter of the appointment of a permanent Head of the SIU has been raised with the President with a view to making an appointment soon. Internal capacity issues within the SIU need also to be addressed.


3.2.5. Providing support to the Commission of Enquiry into the Strategic Defence Procurement Package. This includes providing for the Commission’s staffing and accommodation needs.


3.3. The Minister noted that the Department has had to absorb budget or efficiency cuts amounting cumulatively to more than R600 million that may have serious implications for service delivery.


3.3.1. The following spending pressures were specifically mentioned:

· Administration costs of courts, especially at district and High Court level, will need additional resources in the medium term.

· Start up and operational costs for the High Courts at Polokwane and Nelspruit will need to be budgeted for.

· Enabling the establishment of capacity in the newly established Office of the Chief Justice.

· Inflationary pressures, especially those relating to the cost of leased accommodation and municipal rates, which continue to increase in excess of inflation.

· Providing additional capacity to enhance state legal services.

· Improved delivery of the judicial education programme through South African Judicial Education Institute (SAJEI), especially providing training for magistrates.

· Court record management.


4. Overview of Revised Strategic Plan 2012 – 2017 and Annual Performance Plan 2012/13


4.1. The Director-General presented the Department’s revised strategic plan for the period 2012-2017, as well as its annual performance plan for 2012/13.Notably, there are no significant changes to the Strategic Plan. There are some revisions, however, to:

· Better align the strategic and annual performance plans by making use of common indicators in both documents.

· Clarify indicators that could not be finalised last year.

· Include baseline information where this has become available.


4.2. The Department retains four high-level goals:

· Goal 1: To increase the Department’s accountability, effectiveness and efficiency. (Improved compliance with legal and good practice requirements in respect of governance across all branches and structures towards an unqualified audit.)

· Goal 2: To improve the effectiveness and efficiency in the delivery of justice service.(Courts and justice service points are supported to improve finalisation rates, efficiencies and backlogs in respect of all criminal, civil and family matters.)

· Goal 3: To transform legal services to protect and advance the interests of government and citizens and to promote constitutional development. (The exposure of government to legal risk is reduced, citizens have access to quality guardian and probate services, the state has access to legal advice and services and constitutional development is promoted.)

· Goal 4: To effectively co-ordinate the JPCS Cluster in the delivery of Outcome 3. (The provision of effective co-ordination of the cluster to enable the achievement of the eight outputs that will result in the successful delivery of Outcome 3: All people in South Africa are and feel safe.)


4.3. Seventeen strategic objectives give effect to these goals and are related to the three programmes that the Department administers directly (Administration, Court Services and State Legal Services). Further details are given below.


4.4. The Department continues to pay special attention in 2012/13 to the three projects that it prioritised in 2011/12. These are to achieve:


4.4.1. A ‘no audit qualification’ in 2012/13.In 2009/10, the Department initiated a ‘financial turnaround’ project to address the problem of repeated audit qualifications. An audit action plan was developed and is monitored monthly through the Department’s EXCO. Specific activities that will continue in 2012/13 to facilitate attainment of an unqualified audit for 2012/13 include addressing the remaining challenges relating to the administration of the Third Party Funds; improving processes to detect irregular expenditure; and strengthening capacity and skills, as well as controls, to manage the Vote account.


4.4.2. Service turnaround in maintenance services. In 2011/12, a three-year turnaround project for maintenance services was initiated, focussing on the maintenance chain in its entirety. Initiatives that were undertaken in 2011/12 included piloting a re-engineered business process ‘lean management’ project; the appointment and training of maintenance officers; and the localised making of EFT payments. The key deliverable for 2012/13 will be to extend the lean management project to more sites and to deploy the first phase of ICMS maintenance to some courts. During 2012/13, the drive to pay beneficiaries at court level will continue.


4.4.3. Service turnaround in the Masters’ Branch. The Department has concluded the following to improve service delivery in the Master’s Office: More than 250 people were trained for improved service delivery; the MOVIT solution has been extended to all Guardian’s Fund sites; cheques must be collected in person and fingerprints verified on the Master’s Own Verification Information Technology (MOVIT), public awareness campaigns have been conducted using radio and television; and the Masters’ branch has begun the practice of rotating experienced senior officials in frontline offices to assist in swiftly resolving enquiries.


4.5. In addition, the Department must continue to meet its commitments to effectively co-ordinate the JCPS cluster to deliver Outcome 3: ‘All people in South Africa are safe and feel safe’ and the associated outputs.


4.6. The Department has several major infrastructure projects in progress. Notably, the completion date for the Limpopo High Court at Polokwane has been revised from January to July 2012 and will require further revision due to added scope and other delays. At present, the foundation, two basements (including holding cells) and the first floor are completed. To date R265 million has been spent to complete 40% of the project. The plan to build a new court in Mpumalanga at Nelspruit is to be implemented in 2013/14.


4.7. According to the Department, spending pressures have affected the following areas adversely:


4.7.1. Escalating security costs in service points and offices. The Department continues to identify crime against staff and public at service points and offices to be a risk. Despite budget cuts it intends to improve safety and security. In 2011/12, the Department was able to complete 50 security infrastructure projects in courts that it prioritised after a threat and risk assessment. Over the course of the next two years, the Department intends to stretch its resources to rollout security systems to 70 additional courts. (Notably, the Committee recommended in its Budgetary review and recommendation report (BRRR) that the Department receive an additional amount of R319 million for improved security for courts and justice service points. This amount was not made available as substantial amounts had been allocated in past MTEFs to improve security at courts and, in addition, the Department did not include a request in its 2011 MTEF submission).


4.7.2. Increases in rental costs and municipal service rates exceed the official inflation rate.


4.7.3. Increasing facilities to improve access to justice. A major challenge is to address historical imbalances in terms of court infrastructure and is further complicated by factors such as the escalation of infrastructure costs above inflation impacting on cash flows for the building of new courts; balancing the needs of new courts with the maintenance and repair of existing courts; using the infrastructure budget for additional accommodation and growth in the establishment and new areas of services. (The Committee recommended in the 2011 BRRR that the Department be granted R224 million for accommodation. National Treasury responded that substantial funding had been recommended for the construction of new courts).


4.7.4. Infrastructure support to other stakeholders. Spending pressures include increasing the establishment of the lower courts and providing judicial officers with tools of trade.


4.7.5. The Department has identified investment in information technology as a key enabler. It has been allocated R100 million towards ICT infrastructure for 2012/13. Part of this will be used for the Business Continuity Programme. Additional budget is needed for software development and implementation of IT systems.


4.7.6. Increased capacity. This related to costs for the expansion of support personnel establishment in the courts (interpreters, finance and supply change management personnel), as well as staff performing quasi-judicial functions (default judgements, court orders, warrants of execution, etc.).


4.7.7. The implementation costs of proposed and new legislation.


5. Programme 1: Administration


5.1. The Administration programme manages the Department, develops policies and strategizes for efficient administration, and provides centralised support services. Its objectives are linked to Goal 1: Improved Governance.


5.2. Administration is allocated R1.76 billion for its Ministry, Management, Corporate Services and Office Accommodation sub-programmes. The programme grows in real terms by 8.64% in 2012/13 and receives 14.2% of the overall allocation to programmes.


5.3. Corporate Services, consisting of the Department’s Human Resources, Finance and Information Technology branches, is allocated the largest portion of the programme’s budget (R893 million or 55% of the programme’s budget).


5.4. Performance is linked to the following seven objectives:

· Increased compliance with prescripts to achieve and sustain an unqualified audit.

· Improved management of fraud and corruption case.

· Improved effectiveness of support services.

· Increased optimisation of automated systems.

· Improved human resource delivery.

· Increased percentage of outstanding Truth and Reconciliation Commission victims who qualify for reparations per TRC recommendations.

· Improved co-ordination of the JCPS Cluster towards delivery of Outcome 3.


5.5. Selected targets for 2012/13 are to:

· Distribute CARA funds to beneficiaries by 28 February 2013.

· Vet 68% of senior managers against a baseline of 43% (2011/12).

· Finalise 60% of old and 70% of new forensic investigations.

· Roll out the integrated security system to 24 priority courts

· Complete Phase 1 of Masters’ Trust and Third Party Funds systems and Phase 2 of ICMS (Integrated Case Management System) Maintenance Courts and Masters’ Deceased Estates systems.

· Maintain a vacancy rate of 10%.

· Give access to President’s Fund in terms of individual reparation to all beneficiaries (both living and next of kin) and gazette and implement two sets of regulations (community rehabilitation and housing).

· Finalise and deliver four JCPS Cluster reports to the Presidency, as well as to compile four Integrated Justice System (IJS) quarterly progress reports. (A review, led by the Department, has been conducted to facilitate accelerated modernisation and integration of technology systems across the criminal justice system. As a result, a new indicator was added that focuses on reporting progress made regarding the IJS Programme.)


6. Programme 2: Court Services


6.1. The Court Services programme provides for the resolution of criminal, civil and family law disputes by providing courts with administrative support and managing court facilities.


6.2. Overall, Court Services accounts for 38% of the allocation to programmes. The Programme receives R5.3 billion in 2012/13, growing by 14.82% in real terms from 2010/11. Within the programme, spending is prioritised, as in previous years, towards the Lower Courts sub-programme, which receives 58% (R3.05 billion) of the programme’s allocation.


6.3. Notably, Court Services is allocated additional amounts of R11.3 billion over the medium term to build new courts. The sub-programme Facilities Management is allocated R1.2 billion. This is an increase of R445.6 million (58%) more than the allocation in 2011/12.


6.4. Performance is linked to the following six objectives for the five-year period:

· Improved finalisation of activities in support of outputs of Outcome 3.

· Improved delivery of maintenance services.

· Increased protection of the rights of vulnerable groups.

· Increased access to justice services by underserviced communities.

· Improved functionality of justice service points.

· Improved delivery of services at courts.

· Capacitating the Office of the Chief Justice.


6.5. Selected targets for 2012/13 are to:

· Reduce the number of backlog cases to 36 295.

· Implement 100% of Year 1 Plan of the Maintenance Turnaround Project.

· Record 72% of convictions recorded electronically on the National Register of Sexual offenders.

· Designate two additional one stop child justice centres.

· Resolve 100% of cases involving fathers of children born out of wedlock in mediation.

· File 50% of family advocates’ reports in court within 15 days of enquiry.

· Complete two new court building.

· Convert 24 branch courts to full-service courts.

· Establish 30 new small claims courts.

· Grant 65% of default judgements within 30 days.

· Process 65% of unopposed taxations within 30 days of being set down.

· Fill 80% of funded positions in the Office of the Chief Justice.

· Train 350 judicial officers at SAJEI.


7. Programme 3: State Legal Services


7.1. The State Legal Services programme aims to provide legal and legislative services to organs of state, supervise the administration of deceased and insolvent estates, as well as the liquidation of juristic persons, registration of trusts and management of the Guardians’ fund. It also prepares and promotes legislation, conducts research and promotes constitutional democracy. It is the smallest of the Department’s three programmes, receiving R768.1 million of the allocation to programmes. There is little real growth in the programme (0.56%) when compared to 2011/12.


7.2. The major spending area for the programme is the Masters of the High Court sub-programme, which receives R349.2 million or 45% of the programme’s budget for 2012/13.


7.3. Interestingly, a new policy development will address transformation of State Legal Services. A discussion document is to be released shortly for comment and the outcome of the process may have significant implications for the programme.


7.4. Performance is linked to the following four strategic objectives:

· Promote increased efficiency in the provision of services to beneficiaries of the Guardian’s Fund, trusts, as well as insolvent and deceased estates.

· Promote constitutional development and strengthen participatory democracy to ensure respect of fundamental human rights.

· Provide legal services to state organs.

· Develop legislation for effective and efficient delivery of justice services.


7.5. Selected targets for 2012/13 are to:

· Issue 90% of letters of appointment in deceased estates within 15 days of receiving all documents.

· Examine 90% of all L&D accounts within 15 days of receiving all documents.

· Service 90% of beneficiaries within 40 days (Guardian’s Fund).

· Pay 90% of Guardian’s fund monies though EFT.

· Complete the project for improved access to justice including restorative justice mechanisms for vulnerable and marginalised groups.

· Allocate 75% of briefs to previously disadvantages individuals.

· Successfully conclude 50% of cases by state attorney.

· Finalise 75% of legal opinions within 15 days of receiving them.

· Scrutinise or certify 87% of bills and other legal within 20 days of receipt.

· Develop 20 legislative instruments.


8. Committee’s response


8.1. Strategic Planning


8.1.1. This is the first time that the Department has presented to the Committee its annual performance plan for 2012/13 with the budget – last year the annual performance plan had not been finalised at the time the Committee considered the Department’s budget. The Committee is pleased that the Department clearly identified revisions to the strategic plan: a total of 24 indicators were removed; 17 new indicators were included taking into account new business requirements; and 13 indicators were revised to bring them in line with current realities (for example, the Presidential Hotline indicators). The Department also explained that the indicators that were rationalised typically fall within one of two categories – ‘policy’ and ‘non core-function’ indicators. The complexity of policy indicators makes them especially difficult to manage within the APP framework. For this reason, the Department has decided to track the progress of these indicators through EXCO and they will continue to form part of the performance contracts of relevant senior managers. Progress will also form part of the Department’s annual performance report. (Non core-function indicators are retained at branch level and continue to form part of the individual performance plans of relevant senior managers). The Committee notes that the list of affected policy indicators presented embraces many areas of keen interest to it and will continue to monitor their progress regularly.


8.2. Governance and operational issues


8.2.1. As noted in previous reports, the management of Third Party Funds (TPF) has contributed to the Department receiving a qualified audit opinion since 2005/06.Each year, approximately nine million transactions worth more than R3 billion are processed through Third Party Funds. Unless the Department is able to resolve its problems relating to Third Party Funds, it will not meet its first priority which is a ‘no audit qualification in 2012/13’. The Department informed the Committee that it is well on its way towards achieving this goal, as it anticipates it will finally submit credible financial statements for the Funds for 2011/12.The Committee notes that, in March 2012, the Auditor-General expressed reservation at the completeness of the data being used to compile the financial statements and further that, as financial statements for 2008/09 were not submitted and audited, it is possible that this may lead to a qualification or even disclaimer of the opening balances, which may in turn adversely affect the statements compiled for the years that follow. (The Department had previously informed the Committee that annual financial statements were prepared for the Third Party Funds for 2008/09 and 2009/10 but since they were not ‘complete, credible or reliable’, they were not submitted for auditing). The Committee is unclear as to how this will affect the Department’s goal of achieving a clean audit but will continue to monitor progress made quarterly. It is particularly interested in the outcome of the meeting between the Department, the Auditor-General and the project consultants. The Committee requests that the Department provides it with a report on the progress of the project to address the management of TPFs by 23 July 2012.


8.2.2. The Committee is also concerned that the Department appears to have made little progress towards clarifying the legal status of the Third Party Funds. The Committee was told before that there was a need for legislation to clarify the status of these funds to allow the Department to report on them separately; then the Committee was informed that National Treasury had advised the Department that it should establish the Funds as a trading entity. More recently, the Committee was informed that the Department had decided to go ahead with legislation as there had been no further advice from National Treasury. The Committee is unclear how the failure to resolve the Fund’s legal status will affect progress towards a ‘no qualification audit’ for 2012/13. The Committee requests instead that the Department provide a written report on the current state of affairs regarding the Fund’s status, providing details of how it intends to resolve the matter within clear timeframes. Until now the Committee has been unable to facilitate a meeting between the Department and National Treasury to discuss the matter but will engage with the Department on the way forward once it has assessed the written report requested.


8.2.3. Although the Department’s overall vacancy rate is at about 10%, the Committee is dissatisfied that the vacancy rate at SMS level and in strategic areas remains at 20%. Notably, the position of Chief Financial Officer is being filled by an acting appointment and the vacancy rates of critical occupations such as the Strategy Unit, Risk Management and Security, Internal Audit and ISM are too high. The Committee has expressed its concern many times previously at the difficulties that the Department appears to have in filling posts. The Committee believes that, unless the vacancies in management are filled, the Department’s effective running is likely to be compromised. The Committee requests that the Department provides a written plan with targets and timeframes by 23 July 2012 on how it intends to reduce its vacancy rate in areas where it is greater than 10%. The Department should also be prepared to brief it at the next quarterly meeting.


8.2.4. ‘Improved management (and speedy conclusion) of fraud and corruption cases’ is a departmental objective. The Committee previously expressed its dissatisfaction at delays in finalising these matters, as well as its concern regarding the consequences of insufficient capacity in the Department for preventing and combating instances of financial and other misconduct. In 2011, the Department estimates that it finalised 50% of grievance cases and 65% of its misconduct cases. This forms the baseline for this year’s targets, which are to finalise 60% and 70% of grievance and misconduct cases respectively. While the Committee welcomes this, given the focus on tackling instances of fraud and corruption within the JCPS cluster, it was dismayed to hear during a recent oversight visit to the South Gauteng Court of a culture of impunity which allows officials caught ‘red-handed’ to remain at work. The allegation has since been taken up with the Department but remains concerning. The Department is asked to provide the Committee with a comprehensive written report on the progress of its disciplinary and grievance matters, including a section that deals specifically with cases of financial misconduct by 23 July 2012. The Committee also notes, with interest, that the Public Service Commission (PSC) reported elsewhere that the precautionary suspensions of just 69 officials had cost the Department approximately R11 million in 2010/11.


8.2.5. The Committee appreciates that the Department’s budget to adequately secure courts and justice centres is stretched and more so as a result of the expansion of justice services. The Department first reported on plans to roll out the National Security Infrastructure project to 127 sites in 2007, but the project, which was costed at R601 million, only began in 2010. In November 2011, only 18 sites were reported as having been completed (against a target of 50). The Department plans to roll out the project to 90 of 127 identified sites. In addition, six security service providers have been appointed from 1 January 2011 to 31 December 2012 for court security and special protection services. Unfortunately, the contract covers only 707 sites or offices. The Dept. approached SAPS and the SANDF to assist but was informed that they also lacked capacity. S ecurity-related challenges at the South Gauteng High Court in Johannesburg were brought to the attention of the Committee on a recent oversight visit and it is concerned, given the risk to judicial officers, justice officials and members of the public. In its BRRR report, the Committee supported the Department’s bid for additional funding to provide increased security at courts and justice offices but notes National Treasury’s response that additional funding had been allocated in the past and that the Department had not submitted a request for funds to secure courts and justice service points for 2011. The Committee requests the Department to provide it with an action plan for the rollout of the Project by 23 July 2012. Also, some explanation is required on what measures are in place to address security at the 37 identified sites where the project is not being rolled out, as well as the 25 courts where guarding services are not provided. The Committee would also like to be briefed on this matter at the next quarterly meeting in July or August 2012.


8.2.6. Through the Committee’s intervention, the Department receives an additional R210 million for improvements to its IT infrastructure over the MTEF. The Department requested an opportunity to brief the Committee specifically on the difficulties it is having with the State Information Technology Agency (SITA). The Department embarked on a project to migrate its network from Telkom to SITA, as it is required to do. Within a short period of time, however, numerous complaints were received regarding the slowness of the network. The Department put the project on hold while it investigated the problem, and a meeting with SITA took place in January 2012. The Department now has a degraded network and is at the point of going to an external service provider to address technical issues. The Department is reluctant at this stage to spend money on its infrastructure when the system itself is broken. The Committee suggests that the Department investigate best practices in other departments, such as National Treasury. A written report setting out the Department’s strategy and action plan to address its present challenges is requested by 23 July 2012. In addition, the Department is asked to brief it on this item at quarterly meetings.


8.2.7. The need for improved co-ordination and integration of the JCPS Cluster departments’ IT systems has been identified as vital to efforts to ensure the effective implementation of the Criminal Justice System’s Seven-Point Plan, but a Cluster review last year revealed significant challenges, including those relating to the governance and leadership of the Integrated Justice System (IJS) Board; strategic alignment of Cluster departments; and SITA’s internal limitations. The Committee notes too that cited examples of case-related integrations are limited to pilots. The IJS Board, however, has been reconstituted and the Director-General: Justice is now receiving regular reports, which are shared with her counterparts in stakeholder departments. The Committee requests the Department to provide a written report with targets and timeframes on progress made in the identified integration priority areas by 23 July 2012 and be prepared to brief the Committee at the next quarterly meeting in July or August 2012.


8.2.8. The Committee’s attention is drawn to the difficulties presently experienced by almost all entities that report to it regarding the implementation of Occupation Specific Dispensation (OSD) funding. Briefly, the problems appear to be twofold. The first relates to the failure to fully appreciate the carry through costs of the OSD funding, which has severe implications for the budget of affected entities (notably the NPA). The second relates to the manner in which it impacts on the professional stream. The Committee was told that there is meant to be a review of the OSD post-implementation after a specified time but this has not happened. The Committee asks that the Department provide a comprehensive report on its challenges relating to the implementation of the OSD by 23 July 2012.


8.3. Court infrastructure and maintenance


8.3.1. The Department receives approximately R3 billion for capital works over the MTEF: R 1.03 billion in 2012/13; R1.08 billion in 2013/14; and R1.14 billion in 2014/15. The construction of the new Limpopo High Court in Polokwane began in February 2010 and was due for completion in July 2012 but is not on track - only 40% is completed and R265 million spent. The new Mpumalanga High Court in Nelspruit is being planned and is due to be implemented in 2013/14. The Department told the Committee that it fears that it will be unable to spend its capital works budget, largely as a result of delays, and will request a virement later in the year. The Committee is also concerned that delays result in rapidly escalating costs (for example, delays are partially to blame for escalating project costs for additional accommodation at the Johannesburg High Court escalate from an initial tender estimate of R269 million to R345 million). Operational inefficiencies on the part of the Department of Public Works appear to be a contributing factor in these large projects. The Committee previously asked the Department to investigate instances where cancelled tenders have caused project delays and to take steps to avoid this from happening again. It asks now that the Department lists its large scale projects, the reasons for delays where this happened and the costs involved by 23 July 2012. In addition, the Committee requests that it is briefed on spending and performance relating to the Department’s capital works (CAPEX) programme at every quarterly meeting.


8.3.2. The physical state of many courts is a concern: the infrastructure is often old and degraded. Court buildings are not maintained adequately, so that facilities degrade faster than they should. Unpleasant working conditions adversely affect the work of users and impact negatively on service delivery. The Department is establishing norms on how to achieve a balance between its capital works programme and the maintenance of its facilities with a view to engaging the Department of Public Works and the National Treasury on how this can be achieved. The Committee acknowledges that budget constraints pose a challenge for the maintenance of court infrastructure and the need to build additional courts must be weighed against the need to maintain what already exists. The Committee is of the view that systemic failures are also undermining the Department’s ability to adequately maintain courts. In particular, the Committee observed confusion regarding who is responsible for overseeing the resolution of a maintenance problem. Nor does there appear to be clear reporting lines if a matter needs to be escalated. The Committee suggests that the Department establish clear reporting lines: the details of the official responsible for the maintenance of a court should be clearly communicated to the relevant judicial officers and justice officials; and those who are tasked to act, should have the necessary authority to do so. In addition, a procedure for escalating a matter (with the names and contact details of the relevant officials) should be put in place. The Committee requests that the Department also reports on its court maintenance programme by 23 July 2012.


8.4. Court performance and related matters


8.4.1. The Committee is informed that the Department is to play a facilitative role in connection with the proposed assessment of the impact of the decisions of the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court of Appeal on the South African law and jurisprudence, which will be conducted once a service provider is appointed. It requests that the Department keep it informed of the assessment’s progress on a regular basis.


8.4.2. The Committee is pleased that there has been progress in capacitating the Office of the Chief Justice - an estimated 60% of positions were filled in 2011/12 – although the Committee has not been briefed on the Office’s approved establishment. According to the Department’s annual performance plan, the target this year is to increase the number of filled posts to 80%.The Committee notes that systems and protocols are being put in place for the Office of the Chief justice to have its own vote as a national department and that both the Office and the Department are working with National Treasury to this end. Also, memoranda of understanding and protocols are being developed between the Office and the Department to facilitate the transfer of responsibilities and functions to the Office pending legislative amendments. These responsibilities include: the judicial governance functions proposed in the Constitution Seventeenth Amendment Bill, which the Committee is deliberating on. This year (2012/13) the Office is taking responsibility for the Constitutional Court, the Supreme Court of Appeal, the SAJEI, the Rules Board and Magistrate’s Commission: Secretariat.


8.4.3. The Committee remains dissatisfied at slow progress in court performance despite many well-funded initiatives, including projects to reduce case backlogs and to ensure more efficient case management. The number of backlog cases appears to have remained constant (there have been approximately 37 000 backlog cases for the past few years); and the NPA’s statistics show a worrying decline in the number of criminal court cases finalised in 2011/12. A key focus for the Department this year is to facilitate the finalisation of case backlogs and it receives R77 million for this. However, the Department’s role is largely limited to providing resources and personnel – the progress of a case is dependent on a number of other stakeholders. Last year, the Committee was told that the Judiciary is to take on the responsibility of case management and has agreed to the introduction of performance targets in courts, which the Chief Justice will monitor in all courts, including the magistrates’ courts. The Committee assumes that this will happen once the Office of the Chief Justice is fully established. In the meantime, the Committee questions the sustainability of the case backlog project given that results have not been encouraging.


8.4.4. When visiting the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) in September last year, the Committee learnt of the judges’ difficulties in obtaining, among others, basic tools of trade such as computers and reference materials. Although the Constitutional Court’s budget also covers the office of the Chief Justice and SAJEI, it is difficult not to compare the respective budgets of the Constitutional Court and the SCA. The Constitutional Court is allocated R125.2 million whereas the SCA is allocated R19.5 million (a real decrease of 25%) for 2012/13. A recent visit by the Committee to the Constitutional Court confirmed that it is well-resourced. The Committee had queried the discrepancy previously and raised the matter once more at the budget hearings. It learnt that the SCA had under-spent its budget for 2011/12. It seems to the Committee that the problem lies then not in a lack of funds but that the responsible justice officials did not spend the allocated budget. The Committee, therefore, asks that the Director-General look into the situation to identify what factors had contributed to the underspending and how this could be avoided in future. If necessary, she should ‘babysit’ the project until the problem is resolved. The Committee requests that Department provide a written report on progress made to resolve the matter by 23 July 2012 and that it brief it at the next quarterly briefing in August 2012. The Committee intends also to set up a meeting with the SCA judges and the Department in about six months order to ascertain whether the problems that the judges were experiencing have been resolved. The Committee also proposes that it convenes a similar meeting – in the next six months - between the Department and the judges of the South Gauteng High Court to learn whether the challenges that are being experienced there (and which the Committee conveyed to the Department) have been resolved to the judges’ satisfaction.


8.4.5. The Committee has been aware for some time that the Department has been experiencing considerable challenges concerning document management in some courts. There have been various reports of chaotic conditions at High Courts and that files have gone missing. Many of our courts no longer have storage space and, as the Committee learnt on a recent oversight visit, the problem is exacerbated as the National Archives’ is unable to accommodate all archived case files. The Department instituted a five-year document management project: A service provider was engaged to capture digital copies of the files before removing them to off-site storage facilities. The intention was (and remains) that a digital copy of the file would always be available at the court. Unfortunately, the quantity of pages that would need to be scanned was underestimated and the project stalled when the ceiling was met. In the meantime, files had been removed off-site, creating access difficulties, which were later resolved. The Committee requests that the Department provide an action plan with timeframes of the Department’s document management project by 23 July 2012.

8.4.6. Notably, the budget for training of judicial officers has been shifted to the Court Services: Constitutional Court subprogramme. Although approximately R32 million was shifted to the South African Judicial Education Institute (SAJEI) last year, training of judges or magistrates reportedly only began in the last quarter. I n November 2011, the SAJEI Council resolved that magistrates’ training would take place at Justice College in the third quarter 2011/12 until SAJEI was fully operational. The Institute would, however, commence with judicial education training programmes during fourth quarter of 2011/12, the emphasis being on newly appointed magistrates and judges. The Committee notes this and requests a report on current and planned training programmes for Judges and magistrates by 23 July 2012.


8.5. Truth and Reconciliation Commission process


8.5.1. Parliament approved assistance measures for victims identified in terms of the Truth and Reconciliation process. The Committee is relatively pleased that at last there is some progress in giving effect to the assistance measures which fall to the Department to implement: a total of 412 individual reparations were paid (463 remain outstanding). The Department plans to finalise the distribution of funds to all TRC victims during 2012/13 and acknowledged that significant progress has been made since it involved its regional offices in tracing beneficiaries. The Committee also learnt that consultations relating the Basic and Higher Education and Health regulations have been concluded and the regulations are ready for submission to Cabinet. The Department has engaged the Independent Development Trust (IDT) to conduct a needs analysis with a view to implementing the Community Rehabilitation regulations. The Committee, however, remains appalled that that these Regulations are not yet concluded after all this time and requests that the Department continue to inform it of progress on the payment of reparations and the enactment of the regulations with targets and timeframes by 23 July 2012. The Department should also be prepared to brief it at the next quarterly meeting in July or August 2012.


8.6. State Legal Services


8.6.1. The Committee is informed that a discussion document on the Review of State Legal Services is to be released shortly. This will detail plans to consolidate structures providing legal services to the State to enhance performance. The Committee has previously queried certain aspects relating to state litigation, including the fragmented approach to the management of state litigation in an increasingly litigious society, and the absence of a framework making use of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms. It looks forward to engaging further with the Department on the Review and will ask the Department to brief it specifically on it once the discussion document is released.


8.6.2. The Committee has also expressed concern that the Department has difficulty in collecting monies it disburses on behalf of client departments in legal proceedings. It is pleased that the Department is in discussions with the National Treasury to find a workable solution to the challenges the Department is experiencing in this regard. The Committee would like to be kept informed on how these discussions are progressing. It also requests that the Department continue to provide detailed information on outstanding monies owed by client departments quarterly.


8.7. Vulnerable groups


8.7.1. The Committee requests that the Department continue to report quarterly on its spending plan for vulnerable groups. This includes details of what was spent on the implementation of legislation such as the Child Justice Act, the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences and Related Matters) Amendment Act and the Children’s Act.


8.7.2. The Committee learnt that there has been some progress made capturing the particulars of those convicted of sexual crimes but is concerned at the slow pace of capturing the particulars of historical records of those convicted of sexual crimes. It is pleased that the Department reports that stakeholders are co-operating in this regard. Public access to the Register is a concern, however. The Department agreed that it has not done enough, not only to make the public aware of the Register, but also of how it can be accessed, and undertook to rectify this. The Department is requested to provide its plan in this regard with timeframes by 23 July 2012.


8.7.3. The Committee is pleased at the focus on maintenance matters in the Department’s strategic plan to improve delivery of maintenance services. The new Service Delivery Charter and Service Standards should contribute to ensuring a more compassionate and responsive approach on the part of justice officials when dealing with the public. Despite this, however, members continue to receive numerous complaints regarding maintenance matters. The Committee requests that the Department provides a progress report on the Maintenance Turnaround Project by 23 July 2012. In addition, the Committee requests that the Department brief it on its new Service Charter and will invite it to do so in the next quarter.


8.7.4. The Committee notes the intention to open a ‘One-stop Child Justice Centre’ in each Province. Also, the Committee has previously expressed concern that the One-stop Child Justice Centre in Manguang, which has received international acclaim as a centre of excellence, receives little support from the Department. The Department undertook to address the problem. The Committee would like to receive a written report on what has or is being done to provide the Manguang One-stop Child Justice Centre with the required support and resources. On the matter of the intention to establish additional centres, the Committee requests that the Department provide it with an action plan with timeframes by 23 July 2012. Details of the projected budget are also requested.


8.7.5. There has been considerable focus on improving service delivery in the Master’s Office with some impressive results, especially in the area of automation, which the Committee recently observed first-hand. The Department has also finally filled the position of Chief Master of the High Court, providing the Office with the necessary leadership. Difficulties remain, however, especially in the area of service delivery – the Committee, for example, observed the frustration of a member of public when she was informed that there was a technical problem with her documents, which would need to be corrected by the Department of Home Affairs before the Office could finalise her matter. She had already travelled from Johannesburg to Pretoria three times. Also, there were complaints that the phone at the relevant Office just rings. The Committee acknowledges that the Department is making considerable efforts to train officials but urges the Department to do even more to improve the quality of service delivery.


8.7.6. The Committee queried the accessibility of the Master’s Offices for Guardian’s Fund matters. The Committee is appalled that in contrast to deceased estates that can be accessed at all magistrates’ courts there are only six offices countrywide that can deal with Guardian’s Fund matters. Some of the six offices are not even located in the biggest urban areas and for those living outside of these centres access is difficult. The Department told the Committee that the new paperless administration system should reduce the potential for fraud and will allow the Department to expand the number of service points where documents can be collected and quality controlled, and then sent to central Offices for processing. The Committee is of the view that the rollout of the expansion of Guardian’s Fund services is urgent and that, in the meantime, consideration should be given to the use of all Master’s Offices and service points as collection points for documentation. The Committee requested that it be provided with a comprehensive written report with time frames on the proposed expansion of service points by 23 July 2012.


Part 3 National Prosecuting Authority


9. Programme 4: National Prosecuting Authority


9.1. The Acting National Director of Public Prosecutions (NDPP), Adv N Jiba, presented the NPA’s strategic plan 2012/17 and annual performance plan 2012/13. Although the NPA has reviewed its plans, in essence there are few changes. Notably, however, the NPA has amended and aligned its structure to address concerns that the centralisation of control in the NDPP’s Office had contributed to a decline in performance. In particular, the performance of the Special Commercial Crime Unit (SCCU) has declined in past years.


9.2. The JCPS Service delivery agreement remains the basis for the NPA’s planning so that its strategic objectives relate closely to relevant JCPS outputs. The annual performance plan provides the performance indicators and annual targets for 2012 and for the medium term:


Strategic objective




2011/12 (estimated)





Increased successful prosecution of serious crime

No. of criminal cases where sentence > 10 yrs (no option of fine) is imposed.

7 311

6 889

7 027

7 168

7 311

Criminal convictions measured against no. Of new cases enrolled in Regional & High courts.


27 234


25 663


26 177


26 700


27 234

Improved collaboration with JCPS partners

Overall conviction rates


358 344


337 666


344 419


351 308


358 344

No. criminal court cases finalised, including ADRM

504 687

471 148

481 638

493 665

504 687

Improved prosecutions of JCPS officials charged with corruption

No. of JCPS personnel convicted of corruption.






Improved justice services for the victims of crime

No. of operational TCCs.






Increased successful prosecutions of serious corruption

No. of convictions where there is at least R5m assets restrained.







No. freezing orders with at least R5m assets restrained







Increased prosecution of cyber crime

(Output 8 – Address cybercrime)

No. of prosecutors trained in cybercrime prosecution







9.3. The NPA’s budget allocation for 2012/13 is as follows:


R thousand



Public Prosecutions

1 933.2

2 017.1

Witness Protection Programme



Asset Forfeiture Unit



Support Services




2 651.7

2 815.8

Baseline increase (nominal)




9.3.1. The NPA is allocated R2.81 billion for the 2012/13 financial year. No additional MTEF allocations are included in the 2012 Budget. Overall, in real terms, the allocation shows little growth from 2011/12 – the 6% increase is inflation-based.


9.3.2. The Public Prosecutions sub-programme provides for general prosecutions and several specialised prosecution units, including Priority Crimes Litigation, Sexual Offences and Community Affairs and Specialised Commercial Crime. The sub-programme receives R2.01billion for 2012/13. This is the NPA’s largest sub-programme and makes up 73 % of its total allocation to the programme.


9.3.3. The Witness Protection sub-programme provides for protection, support and related services to vulnerable witnesses and related people in judicial proceedings. The sub-programme is allocated R158.5 million for 2012/13. This is 5.6 % of the NPA’s budget.


9.3.4. The Asset Forfeiture Unit (AFU) sub-programme is responsible for seizing assets that are the proceeds of crime or have been part of an offence through a criminal or civil process. The AFU receives R129.7 million for 2012/13, which is 4.6% of the NPA’s overall budget.


9.3.5. The Support Services sub-programme provides corporate support services in terms of finance, human resources, ICT, supply chain and risk management to the NPA. It receives R510 million, or 18% of the overall budget.


9.4. The following were identified as key challenges for 2012/13:

· A decline in performance.

· The Correctional Matters Amendment Act 5 of 2011 provides a maximum period for remand detention of two years, as well as providing for the release of a remand detainee on medical grounds. The legislation could result in additional court appearances and increased workload.

· The NPA requires additional prosecutors so that it can deliver on its annual targets and meet its commitments in terms of the JCPS Delivery Agreement, specifically with regard to Target 5. The establishment of additional High Courts also requires staff. However, funding for compensation of employees has not increased in real terms for 2012/13. This is as a result of additional funding allocated to the NPA in 2010/11 to implement the (backdated) OSD Phase II. The implementation rolled-over to 2011/12 and has impacted negatively on projected expenditure for this item.


9.5. Committee’s response


9.5.1. The Committee welcomes the candid manner in which the NPA presented its plans and explained its present challenges.


9.5.2. The Committee notes that there is little growth in real terms to the NPA’s baseline. The NPA told the Committee that this will place severe strain on its ‘compensation of employees’ budget. As a result, the NPA will not be able to fill any vacancies in 2012/13 with possible adverse consequences for service delivery. The Committee notes that the NPA intends to request a virement from the ‘goods and services’ budget but does not believe this to be a satisfactory solution. In the past, the Committee has expressed dissatisfaction at how funds saved from vacancies have been used to subsidise operations and fears that the trend continues The Committee is unhappy that the position of CEO of the NPA has remained unfilled for so long. It is also gravely concerned that the NPA is unable to adequately address its vacancies (12% in prosecutors) and fears that without the necessary prosecutors a further decline in performance will result.


9.5.3. The Committee notes that previously it expressed concern regarding the NPA’s financial planning and management of expenditure, which had resulted in the NPA underspending on its budget. Although the NPA spent its budget for 2011/12, the NPA conceded that it had underestimated the carry-through costs of the OSD, leading to its current funding pressures. Notably, LASA has also indicated that OSD funding is creating difficulties for it. The Committee is unclear whether the problem that the NPA faces with regard to OSD funding is a symptom of historical poor planning on its part or whether there is continued complacency on the part of management. The Committee intends to closely monitor, on a quarterly basis, the NPA’s spending trends. In addition, it requests a comprehensive written report that gives details of existing vacancies, as well as the impact that the budget shortfall has for recruitment of unfilled posts by 23 July 2012.


9.5.4. The Committee notes that the NPA is reverting to the previous organisational structure. The NPA held a summit attended by its senior management. A key recommendation that emerged was that the structural changes that were introduced by Advocate Simelane had adversely affected the NPA’s performance – it created problems for span of control and accountability. Although other reasons had contributed to the NPA’s declining performance, a decision has been taken to revert to the previous structure, as this was identified as significantly contributing to the trend (The number of convictions for the Special Commercial Crime Unit, for example, had declined from 960 in 2009/10 to 742 in 2010/11 although the conviction rate remained high at 92%). The Committee is alarmed at the report of declining performance, which is supported by the statistics presented to it. It intends to monitor that statistics relating to performance closely and request that the NPA submit these quarterly to it. The NPA should also be prepared to present on this at the next quarterly meeting with the Committee in July or August 2012.


9.5.5. The Committee is concerned at the large number of informal mediations being used to resolve cases, albeit that informal mediation typically occurs in less serious offences. Still, as informal mediation is unregulated, there is potential for the process to be abused. The statistics do not assist either as they capture cases finalised by means of Alternative Dispute Resolution Methods (ADRM), which includes both informal mediation and diversion. The Committee has previously expressed its view that there may be a need for legislation to regulate alternate dispute resolution methods that include both diversion and informal mediation. The Committee also requests that the NPA provide the Committee with a written report by 23 July 2012 giving statistics of informal mediation for 2011/12, including the number of cases finalised using informal mediation, a geographical spread of these cases and an indication of the types of offences in which informal mediation was used.


9.5.6. At present, sexual offence cases are heard in both dedicated and the mainstream courts. Thuthuzela Care Centres are one-stop centres for rape care and also hear sexual offence cases. The Committee has welcomed the intention to build more Thuthuzela Care Centres, remains keenly interested in the project plans and would like to be informed of progress at the quarterly reviews. Previous statistics presented to the Committee indicated higher conviction rates at dedicated courts but the trend has been to do away with the specialised or dedicated courts. The Committee is not in favour of this and is distressed at the decline in the specialised courts. The Committee has learnt that the judiciary appears not to favour dedicated courts for a number of reasons: Fear of emotional ‘burn-out’ accompanying having to hear sexual offence matters exclusively; and dedicated courts are seen as career-limiting. The Department told the Committee that it is investigating the re-introduction of specialised courts for sexual offences but no detail was presented at this stage. Once again, the Committee feels that the management of sexual offence cases needs to be approached in a more focused way. It is pleased that the Department is investigating this and requests that a written report is provided giving more details of the possible re-introduction of specialised courts by 23 July 2012. The Committee intends also to invite all relevant role-players – the Department, the NPA, LASA and the judiciary – to meet with it in the next quarter, in July or August 2012, to discuss the management of sexual offence cases.


9.5.7. The Committee pointed out to the Acting NDPP that responsibility for the Witness Protection programme, in fact, should not reside with the NPA but with the Department. The NPA welcomed this. The matter was also raised with the Director-General: Justice. The Committee, therefore, requests that the Department respond in writing by 23 July 2012.



Part 4 Auxiliary and Associated Services


10. Overview of the budget allocation to Auxiliary and Associated Services 2012/13




(Revised estimate)

Medium term estimates





Legal Aid South Africa

1 137 545

1 232 717

1 311 109

1 389 428

Special Investigating Unit

293 191

307 310

298 229

286 564

South African Human Rights Commission

89 773

100 736

108 046

114 513

Office of the Public Protector

153 729

173 765

189 855

205 020

Justice modernisation

353 777

524 797

558 271

591 767

Represented Political Parties’ Fund

103 981

109 180

115 185

122 096


2 131 996

2 448 505

2 580 695

2 709 388


11. Legal Aid South Africa (LASA)


11.1. LASA was established by the Legal Aid Act 22 of 1969, as amended, and provides independent and impartial legal aid to indigent persons at the state’s expense with a view to improving justice and public confidence in the law. It provides services in all district, regional and high courts through its extended network.


11.2. LASA is allocated R1.23 billion for 2012/13, which is a 2% increase in real terms. However, efficiency savings are made amounting to R34 million. Limiting the recruitment rate to 96% has accommodated these cuts.


11.3. In this strategic cycle 2012-2017, LASA Intends to further develop the platform it has built to deliver quality legal services to the poor to achieve:

· Increased organisational maturity in terms of its delivery platform (quality legal services to the poor), as well as its support platform.

· Sustainability to ensure continued high performance.

· New and improved forms of access to justice for clients especially the poor.

· Incorporating the advances of technology in all aspects of its business to improve efficiency and effectiveness.

· Building the organisation’s collective competency to deliver quality legal service that meets the highest standards.


11.4. LASA has allocated its budget for 2012/13 as follows:


Component of the balanced scorecard

Selected strategies

Budget 2012/13

Client, community, stakeholder and shareholder

· To deliver client focused and quality legal services.

· To educate/ inform communities about the Constitution and legal aid services.

· To contribute to building an efficient and effective justice system, JCPS Cluster and to implement actions flowing from the Criminal Justice System Review.

· To account timeously to Parliament and to the Executive Authority.

R872 982 177

Finance and sustainability

· To maintain a sustainable and financially stable LASA.

· To ensure good governance.

· To develop a strong and recognised LASA brand.

R21 676 885

Business processes (internal)

· To review business processes and ensure that the efficient, effective, economic, client-centred, professional and independent.

· To develop accurate, relevant and timely management information to inform business planning and decisions.

· To ensure sound financial management and sustainable business processes.

R13 053 406

Employee and organisational strategy

· To expand the national footprint to increase the capacity to deliver services and to support the delivery of legal services. Staffing in support of delivery.

· To develop appropriate competencies.

· To implement people-centred resource management with LASA an employer of choice.

· To maintain a positive organisational culture.

· To enhance the LASA IT platform.

· To build a learning and innovative organisation.

R379 065 623


11.5. LASA has a mixed-delivery model, providing legal aid through its 64 justice centres, 64 satellite offices and 13 High Court Units (96% of new matters); Judicare (3% of new matters); co-operation partners (1% of new matters) and agency agreements (less than 1% of new matters). The number of cases dealt with continues to increase as its national footprint expands. It covers 80% of District Courts (4 days/week) and 100% of Regional Courts (5 days/week). In High Courts, a central court roll provides coverage in cases where legal aid is required. A toll-free call-centre gives general legal advice.


11.6. LASA highlighted that it has the following key finance and sustainability challenges:

· Efficiency savings have been imposed of R34 million for 2012/13. This has meant that there can be no increase to the operating budget except for contractual obligations. As inflation is not factored into the operating budget, it is inadequate and the recruitment level has had to be reduced. The result is fewer legal professionals in court.

· Also, the Department has reduced the baseline for OSD Phase 1 funding by R30 million. This has further impacted on recruitment.

· Stakeholders have consistently raised the need for more practitioners in court. The current funding does not allow for relief staff, which can result in inadequate coverage.

· The annual salary adjustments exceed the macro increase.

· Contract escalations average at 12%, exceeding the macro increase of 6%. This consumes the operating budget with the result that there is negative growth in real terms.


11.7. Committee’s response


11.7.1. LASA’s presentation of its strategic and annual performance plan has, as ever, greatly impressed the Committee. The Committee congratulates the LASA on the recognition it has received from the international community which sees LASA as providing a model for others. It has also worked hard at establishing its brand and making the public aware of its work – a recent independent survey shows that awareness has grown significantly in the past seven years, increasing to more than 50%. LASA’s leadership, governance and institutional arrangements and method of work are laudable and, in the Committee’s view, should be drawn upon as best practice within the Cluster. The Committee, however, would like to have greater insight into LASA’s work by undertaking oversight ‘on the ground’ and intends to build this into its programme for the near future. At the request of the Committee, LASA has also undertaken to provide the Committee with its quarterly information (expenditure and performance) reports.


11.7.2. The Committee has supported LASA’s goal of expanding its civil work and impact litigation. Last year it asked LASA to look into providing legal assistance in maintenance matters. It notes that LASA has done so but is still considering how best to go about providing assistance to the most vulnerable, given its present capacity and budgetary constraints. The Committee will follow-up on this at the next quarterly meeting in July or August 2012.


11.7.3. LASA confirmed that, through its mixed-delivery model, it is able to cover all courts, although it experiences capacity challenges, especially relating to providing relief staff should a practitioner be ill, etc. The Committee noted that it receives many letters from awaiting-trial detainees (ATDs). LASA agreed that there are too many ATDs. Although LASA covers all reception courts, it is experiencing some challenges with regard to ATDs who initially refuse legal aid, but then later request assistance. It also has embarked on an initiative with SAPS to provide after-hours capacity at police stations in an effort to prevent unnecessary/prolonged detention. LASA has also entered into co-operation agreements to further expand its national footprint: Five co-operation agreements are operational (four with university clinics) and another two (with university clinics) are pending. The Committee is interested in how effective these are and would like to be continually informed of developments at quarterly meetings.


11.7.4. The Committee expressed its concern at potential overlaps between LASA and others in promoting and educating the public of their rights: The SAHRC and the Justice Department are already running education campaigns about the Constitution. The Committee suggests that stakeholders with the Cluster work together to ensure that public awareness or education campaigns are co-ordinated to ensure that resources are used efficiently and effectively. LASA reassured the Committee that it is aware that educating the public about the Constitution is not its direct responsibility and is considering how best to co-operate with the SAHRC and others on specific programmes.


11.7.5. The Committee learnt that LASA’s IT platform is ‘in-sourced’ and is working extremely well, although last year there were some challenges surrounding bandwidth, but this has been resolved. The Committee cannot but help compare how well LASA’s IT platform functions to support the work it does with the seemingly never-ending difficulties that the Department, for example, faces.


11.7.6. The Committee notes LASA’s concern that the judiciary has raised some questions concerning LASA’s (relatively) recent contribution policy, which was adopted to enable LASA to provide assistance to the ‘not so poor’ in criminal matters. The concern is that the Legal Aid Act may not sanction this and that a legislative amendment may be necessary. The Committee undertakes to raise LASA’s concern with the Department and will follow-up on progress at the next quarterly meeting.


11.7.7. The Committee notes the resourcing constraints that LASA has and the measures it put in place to address its shortfalls. Unfortunately, LASA has had to hold back on recruitments, keeping it at 96% to fund shortfalls. Given that the need for more practitioners in court is consistently raised as a challenge both within LASA and by external stakeholders, the restriction on recruitment is undesirable. The current funding does not allow for relief staff, which can result in inadequate coverage capacity and contribute to delays and inefficiencies within the criminal justice system. In addition, LASA’s ability to expand its civil work is also affected by a lack of funding. The Committee, however, notes that LASA has been innovative in establishing a call centre and looking at other ways to address this need.


12. Special Investigating Unit (SIU)


12.1. The SIU is an independent, statutory body that investigates corruption and maladministration and can institute civil legal action to correct any wrongdoing. Investigations are mandated by Presidential proclamation.


12.2. The SIU’s budget for 2012/13 is as follows:




Nominal % change

Real % change

R million






Transfer from DoJ&CD





4.84 %

-1.00 %

Revenue (SLA’s)





12.64 %

6.36 %






7.56 %

1.57 %


12.3. The SIU is funded by way of a transfer payment from the Vote and, in the past, has generated income by charging client departments for its investigations. In 2012/13, the SIU receives R307.3 million, which is 1.0% less in real terms compared to 2011/12. However, in 2011/12, the SIU was allocated an additional amount of R97.4 million for the payment of investigating officers when it became apparent that difficulties related to the legality of the SIU’s co-operation agreements would impede its ability to generate own income. The Unit had expected to earn R240 million from these agreements for 2011/12 but instead had to turn to Treasury for the shortfall. The SIU had expected to generate R175 million for 2012/13 but will need to forgo this amount pending the enactment of amending legislation.


12.4. As mentioned above, the SIU has generated income by charging client departments for its investigations. In 2006/07, its projects accounted for 60% of its total income. This share declined to 34% in 2011/12 when the SIU received legal advice that its enabling legislation did not empower it to charge for its services. Ideally, the SIU aims to fund its internal capacity (permanent staff and associated operational infrastructure) from grant funding; partnership funding would then be used towards variable capacity (in-sourced consultants and associated overheads). However, as 35% of its planned budget for 2012/13 (R175 million) depended on partnership funding, the SIU has had to terminate the services of more than 100 consultants providing specialized forensic skills. In addition, all new permanent appointments to grow internal capacity have been put on hold until the necessary statutory amendments are made.


12.5. The SIU’s strategic goal is to increase the impact of its forensic services in the public sector. This goal is supported by pillars that focus both externally and internally. The intended impact of its external objectives is to strengthen strategic partnerships; increase the scope of operations; and contribute directly to Outcome 3 (South Africans are and feel safe) and 12 (Efficient, effective and development-orientated state). Specifically, its external strategic are to:

· Increase the impact of the SIU’s forensic services in the public sector.

· Achieve optimum institutional form.

· Ensure excellent co-operation with law enforcement partners and stakeholders .


12.6. For the SIU to be able to achieve its external objectives, the SIU has indentified the following internal strategic drivers:

· Secure appropriate capacity and funding.

· Align and improve systems and processes.

· Invest in appropriate technology capacity.

· Build an engaged, diverse and competent SIU.

· Develop effective, accountable, and engaging leadership.


12.7. The SIU has the following challenges for 2012/13:


12.7.1. The SIU relies on partner funding to supplement grant income. The SIU had expected to generate R175 million in 2012/13 (35%) of its total budget, which would be used towards in-sourced forensic consultants (R120 million) and internal operational costs (R55 million). Delays in legislative amendments have had a significant impact on its revenue flows and it has had to make significant budget cuts until the legislative amendments are enacted.


12.7.2. The SIU’s approved establishment has 668 funded posts, with plans to grow it to 706 in the next three years. However, in reality, the number of permanent posts filled has decreased from 594 in 2007/08 to 522 in 2010/11 as a result of uncertainty relating to project funding. A major strategic focus has been to build more capacity through recruitment and development initiatives to deal with investigations of corruption. However, the SIU is unable to appoint additional permanent staff until its funding challenge is resolved.


12.7.3. The PFMA provides accounting officers with control of the investigation, disciplinary action, possible civil action or referral for criminal actions, and the implementation of recommendations. This can be a problem where the accounting officer fails to take action or is even implicated him or herself. Delays in amendments to the SIU’s enabling legislation that address, among others, the issue of the SIU’s locus standi in pursuing civil litigation, restricts the SIU’s overall impact


12.8. Overall, regarding performance, there has been a significant change in the SIU’s focus from small, multiple cases to fewer, complex, long-term investigations into procurement. This coincides with government’s new focus on procurement irregularities. The SIU is participating in initiatives like the Anti-Corruption Task Team (ACTT), Multi-Agency Working Group on Procurement (MAWG) and the Special Anti-corruption Unit in the Department of Public Service and Administration (Wasps).


12.9. In 2011/12, there were seven new proclamations, all of which involve large scale investigations: Midvaal Local Municipality (Gauteng); former Department Roads and Transport (Eastern Cape); Koponong Local Municipality (Free State); Eskom (National); Swellendam Local Municipality (Western Cape); COGTA: Water for All Project (Mpumalanga); and the Limpopo Province intervention (National Treasury). Three proclamations extended ongoing investigations.


12.10. Committee’s response


12.10.1. The Committee commends the SIU for its work in tackling fraud and corruption within Government but is extremely disappointed that the SIU’s presentation on its operations, in which the Committee was most interested, was largely the same as that presented last year. The Committee would like to be kept informed of the SIU’s operations/investigations at future meetings.


12.10.2. The Committee is aware of the SIU’s present difficulties relating to its funding and is extremely concerned at the impact that this is having on it ability to undertake its work. In real terms, the SIU’s grant has not increased substantially, as National Treasury anticipates that the partnership funding will be restored. The relevant legislation is before the Committee for consideration and report and has been prioritised. The same amending legislation will also address any challenges that it experiences when pursuing civil litigation to make recoveries. However, even before the present challenges emerged, the SIU had alerted the Committee to the risk of relying too much on funding from service level agreements. It has also meant that the SIU has not been able to grow its own internal capacity in the way it would have liked. The Committee agrees that in the long term there does need to be further debate on the appropriate funding model for an anti-corruption agency such as the SIU.


12.10.3. The Committee believes that, given the vital role that the SIU plays in fighting corruption within the public sector, it is undesirable that the position of Head of the SIU remain unfilled for any length of time. In addition, the present Acting Head must juggle her time between the NPA, where she remains Head of Legal Affairs, and the SIU. It urges the Ministry to bring the matter to the attention of the Presidency with a view to the securing a permanent appointment in the near future.


12.10.4. The Committee also notes that the SIU acknowledges that there have been internal challenges that have led to some unhappiness in the workplace. The Committee notes that the number of permanent staff has declined in recent years, which has also contributed to increasing reliance on consultants. This is expensive (at present, approximately two-thirds of the salary bill) despite the favourable rates that been negotiated. Ideally, the SIU would prefer to rely on consultants only for their specialised skills, which would be made use of for a specific time.


13. South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC)


13.1. The mandate of the South African Human Rights Commission (the Commission) is to support and strengthen constitutional democracy by promoting, protecting and monitoring human rights.


13.2. The pressure of a limited budget and other resource constraints led the Commission to review its strategic plan. The strategic plan encompasses the period 2012-2015, identifying five strategic outcome-orientated goals. They are to:

· Improve the quality of complaints handling mechanism to enable greater access to and protection of rights, particularly by the most vulnerable.

· Improve the quality of monitoring, evaluation of and reporting on the realisation of human rights by streamlining the monitoring, evaluation and reporting processes to effectively measure the realisation of human rights.

· Inculcate a culture of human rights through human rights advocacy by developing and implementing an effective and efficient human rights advocacy plan.

· Strengthen organisational efficiency to ensure the effective and efficient utilisation of human and financial resources.

· Improve communication and stakeholder engagement by developing communication tools and key stakeholder relationships.


13.3. There are six strategic objectives that flow from the strategic outcome-orientated goals mentioned above. They are to:

· Promote compliance with international obligations.

· Position the Commission as the focal point for human rights in South Africa.

· Strengthen advocacy and human rights awareness training.

· Advance the realisation of human rights.

· Advance the right to equality and access to information.

· Improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the Commission.


13.4. Overview of the SAHRC’s budget for 2012/13





% increase

% allocation

R thousand




56 103.4

66 270.8




2 267.7

2 714.0




3 033.

1 273.0









2 037.0

2 334.8



Administration & SCM

17 991.0

18 069.1



Human Resources

2 186.8

2 626.1




2 140.0

3 434.1























Internal Audit





Parliamentary and International Affairs (has been incorporated in Research)







89 773.0

100 736.0




13.5. The Commission is allocated R100.7 million for 2012/13, which it receives in the form of a transfer payment from the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development: The allocation is reflected under the Vote’s Programme 5: Auxiliary and Associated Services. The allocation for 2012/13 has grown in real terms by 6% from R89.7 million in 2011/12.


13.6. The Commission has identified an ideal budget of R123 million. Accordingly, it has rationalised its services as follows:

· A strong focus on human rights violations is to be assisted by a new complaints-handling mechanism, which was introduced in 2011/12.

· Advocacy work and research has been scaled down.

· Collaborative partnerships with other Chapter 9 institutions, civil society organisations and even corporate law firms (who provide pro bono legal services) are being developed and strengthened.

· International engagements are limited.


13.7. Selected achievements for 2011/12 include:

· A complaints backlog project has resulted in just over 86% of backlog complaints being settled (by the end of March 2012, backlogs were reduced from 2209 to 295 cases).

· Improved organisational performance from meeting just 52% of its objectives on 2009/10 to 67% by the end of 2010/11. Presently, performance is at over 80%.

· The adoption of an impact-driven approach supported by the development of performance and monitoring tools. Several key reports were published.


13.8. Key activities planned for 2012/13 include:

· Implementing the new complaints-handling mechanism.

· Holding provincial hearings on access to water and sanitation.

· Facilitating a national conversation on the right to food.

· Chairing the Network on African National Human Rights Institutions.

· Chairing the (new) Forum for Institutions Supporting Democracy.

· Implementing a ‘back-to-basics’ service delivery programme for all staff.


13.9. Committee’s response


13.9.1. The Committee is appreciative of the Commission’s the valuable work in promoting and protecting human rights. It notes also the Commission’s high-standing among human rights commissions worldwide and, furthermore, congratulates it on chairing of the Network on African National Human Rights Institutions.


13.9.2. The Committee acknowledges that the difference between the Commission’s ideal budget of R123 million and its allocation for 2012/13 creates funding challenges. The Commission experienced a similar discrepancy between its ideal budget (R115 million) and the allocated budget last year, although the allocation then had increased by 14% in real terms from 2010/11. Although real growth this year is more modest than last year, nevertheless the Commission receives approximately R11 million or 6% more. Its baseline also increased for improved conditions of service. The Committee is of the view, however, that it would have been more constructive if the Commission had provided it with the specifics of additional funds required, so that the Committee could be sufficiently informed to make budgetary proposals. It specifically requests that the Commission ensure that, during the budgetary review and recommendation process in October this year, the Commission gives the Committee specific and well-motivated funding proposals regarding its additional needs for 2013/14. It is, however, pleased that the Commission’s planning for 2012/13 has taken fiscal realities into account and has focussed its work on human rights violations.


13.9.3. Once more the Committee agrees that the amendments to the Commission’s enabling legislation and outdated staff regulations are overdue. It understands that the matter of the Commissioners’ remuneration is delaying finalisation of the proposed legislation and agrees that, if necessary, this aspect of the proposed legislation should be dealt with separately, so as to not delay the Bill any further. The Committee will ask the Department when it expects to be able to introduce the amending legislation.


13.9.4. The Committee supports efforts to strengthen the Commission’s relationship with Parliament. The Committee is concerned that the Commission does not appear to be making full use of its opportunities to engage with the Committee in order to address its challenges whether it is to obtain more funding or address problems encountered when engaging with government departments. A suggestion was made that the Committee and Commission engage further with a view to identifying ways in which the relationship between them can be facilitated, including developing the ways in which information is communicated.


13.9.5. The Committee is pleased to note that the Commission has taken up its recommendation that it present its PAIA report separately in future and is keen to engage with the Commission on the contents of the report at the relevant time. More generally, the Committee remains of the view that Parliament will benefit if, as a matter of course, the Commission’s work was to be brought to the attention of committees with a specific interest in the subject matter.


13.9.6. Furthermore, the Committee believes that the new parliamentary Office for Institutions Supporting Democracy (OISD) should play a vital role in ensuring that the Commission’s work is more widely disseminated. It is concerned that the Commission appears to be experiencing some challenges in its interactions with the OISD (The Public Protector informed the Committee that it is working well with the Office). The Committee has not yet engaged with the Office but intends to meet with it as soon as it can.


13.9.7. The Commission received an unqualified audit report, but the Auditor-General raised certain issues regarding its performance. The Committee notes that the Commission has included a report on its progress in addressing the Auditor-General’s concerns, which appears most promising. The Committee congratulates it on the improved performance and thanks it for providing the report as requested. Of course, the Committee will engage more closely on the Commission’s performance during the annual review of performance in October 2012.


13.9.8. The Committee has asked previously for information concerning the government departments that do not supply the Commission with requested information so that the Committee can formally engage with them. The Committee is especially concerned at the poor co-operation of the majority of the identified government departments when the Commission recently compiled its socio-economic report, despite this being required by the Constitution. Although the Commission told the Committee that the situation has not yet reached ‘breaking-point’, the nevertheless requests that it is given further details so that it can assist the Commission by bringing its challenges with the departments to the attention of relevant portfolio committees.



13.9.9. The Committee supports the initiative to (re-)establish a forum for constitutional institutions, chaired by the Commission. Past efforts to do so were not especially successful, but the need to co-operate and collaborate for greater efficiency and effectiveness remains – even more so, given the many challenges that these institutions are faced with. The Committee queried whether memoranda of understanding have been negotiated where mandates overlap. The Commission mentioned that it had compiled terms of reference for collaboration and that these were to be discussed at the next meeting of the Forum. The Committee requests that the Commission provide it with quarterly progress reports on the initiative.


13.9.10. The Committee is concerned at the potential overlap between the Commission’s constitutional mandate to promote human rights and the Department’s programme to address its own constitutional development mandate. It has queried this previously – the Department’s programme is donor-funded and run by the Foundation for Human Rights. Nonetheless, given the scarcity of resources, it seems preferable to the Committee that care is taken to ensure that there is no duplication, albeit that the approach may be different.


13.9.11. The Committee is interested in the reported trends of human rights violations. For the first time, it would appear that reported violations concerning arrested and detained persons (comprising 16%of complaints for 2011/12) outweigh those concerning equality (mostly related to race and making up 13% of complaints for 2011/12). Of course, without further analysis, it is only possible to speculate on underlying causes and effects. The Committee thanks the Commission for promptly furnishing it with a full report on the trends. It hopes to engage further on these at the next meeting in July or August 2012.


14. Public Protector (PP)


14.1. The PP receives an amount of R174.2 million in 2012/13. The increase in its budget from R154.2 million in 2011/12 (an increase in real terms of 12%) is partly to fund additional investigative personnel (R15 million), improvement of conditions of service (R2 million) and municipal and accommodation costs. The bulk of the PP’s budget (65%) goes to personnel costs.


14.2. The PP is mandated to support and strengthen constitutional democracy by investigating any conduct in state affairs or in the public administration in any sphere of government that is alleged or suspected to be improper or as a result of any impropriety or prejudice, to report on the alleged or suspected conduct and to propose remedial action. The PP has a number of additional legislative mandates.


14.3. The PP presented a revised Strategic Plan 2012 – 2015. The vision, mission and mandate are unchanged.


14.4. The PP retains the following five strategic pillars:

· Accessibility to and trustworthiness by all persons and communities.

· Responsiveness to all complaints through accountability and prompt remedial action.

· Promoting good governance in the conduct of all State affairs (through systemic transformation).

· Effective and efficient business and support systems and operations.

· Optimal performance and service focused culture with committed people.


14.5. The strategic objectives that will guide the PP’s operations for the next three years are slightly refined:

· Accessible to and trusted by all persons and communities.

· Prompt justice, including remedial action.

· Promotion of good governance in the conduct of all state affairs.

· An efficient and effective organisation.

· Optimal performance and service focused culture.


14.6. The PP highlighted what had really changed in terms of planning was the following:

· An increased focus to ensure prompt justice by including the use of remedial action for complaints. The use of alternative dispute resolution methods, such as mediation, is intended to assist in achieving faster, more immediate and meaningful solutions to problems. All complaints are to be peer-reviewed to ensure quality when resolving matters using mediation. There is also an increase focus on the number of systemic and own initiative investigations.

· Operational changes include a review of the business model and processes to streamline operations by centralising the intake and assessment of complaints with a single entry point to prevent the loss of cases in the system; a review of operations and ICT infrastructure. A fully fledged call centre is planned.

· At the level of personnel, the PP intends to finalise the review of its performance management system and review conditions of service.


14.7. The PP indicated that it has the following challenges:

· The need for improved/enhanced accessibility to all persons and communities.

· The need for increased investigative capacity to reduce the caseload for each investigator.

· Resources allocated do not match the increased complexity of the cases being dealt with, as well as the increased numbers in complaints received.


14.8. The PP specifically requires funds to allow it to:

· Address capacity constraints in investigations.

· Establish a fully fledged call centre and complaints hotline.

· Improve its ICT systems.

· Establish mediation rooms.

· Establish new premises for the PP’s Head Office.

· Review the implementation of OSD to ensure staff retention.


14.9. Committee’s response


14.9.1. The Committee notes that the Public Protector’s budget has increased in real terms by 12% although the allocation may not be as much as the Public Protector would have liked. A total of R15 million is made available to increase investigative capacity at the Office and R2 million for improved conditions of service. The Committee notes the PP’s indication of how it would make use of any additional funds and asks that the PP prepare a full presentation of its additional requests at the budgetary review and recommendation report process in October 2012.


14.9.2. The Committee notes that the provincial allocations have become less inequitable, although it remains of the view that the allocation to the North West office is still too large and will continue to monitor this.


14.9.3. The Committee suggested before that the Public Protector should compile a report, before the annual report process, indicating which departments or ministries had not responded to its recommendations, to assist Parliament in bringing those who do not comply to account. It understands that the PP has access to hard powers to enforce her powers but chooses to use these sparingly. The Committee reminds the PP that it is willing to engage formally on how it can assist the Public Protector to ensure that government departments carry out recommendations.


14.9.4. The Committee is also interested to hear of the Public Protector’s focus on achieving prompt justice by using mediation to resolve complaints, and of its effectiveness. The Public Protector is documenting the method, which is better referred to as appropriate or proportional dispute resolution. The Committee asks that the Public Protector brief it fully on the documented method once it is completed and that it receives statistics of complaints resolved in this manner quarterly.


14.9.5. The Committee notes that the PP has experienced problems in establishing a fully functional case management system but expects to resolve its challenges in this regard soon. The Committee asks that it provide a progress report on this at the next quarterly meeting in July or August 2012.



Part 5 Summary of reporting requests and recommendation


15. The Committee requests that the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development and National Prosecuting Authority report on/brief it specifically on the following:


Reporting matter

Action required


Department of Justice and Constitutional Development

1. Management of Third Party Funds

2. Legal status of Third Party Funds

(See paragraphs 8.2.1. & 8.2.2.)

Written report with targets and timeframes


23 July 2012

3. Vacancies at senior management level and other critical occupations

(See paragraph 8.2.3.)

Written report with targets and timeframes

23 July 2012


At next quarterly meeting – July or August 2012 (refer to Committee programme)

4. Progress made on disciplinary and grievance matters with special reference to cases of financial misconduct (paragraph 8.2.4.)

Written progress report


23 July 2012

5. Strategy and action plan to address security at courts

(See paragraph 8.2.5.)

Action plan with targets and timeframes

23 July 2012


At next quarterly meeting – July or August 2012 (refer to Committee programme)

6. Management of the Department’s IT infrastructure

(See paragraph 8.2.6)

Action plan with targets and timeframes

23 July 2012


At next quarterly meeting – July or August 2012 (refer to Committee programme)

7. Management of IT in the JCPS Cluster

(See paragraph 8.2.7.)

Written report with targets and timeframes

23 July 2012


At next quarterly meeting – July or August 2012 (refer to Committee programme)

8. Challenges relating to the implementation of OSD funding

(See paragraph 8.2.8.)

Written report with action plan and targets

23 July 2012

9. Spending on and performance of the capital works programme (See paragraph 8.3.1.)


At next quarterly meeting – July or August 2011 (refer to Committee programme)

10. Maintenance of court infrastructure (See paragraph 8.3.2.)

Written report with targets and timeframes

23 July 2012


At next quarterly meeting – July or August 2012 (refer to Committee programme)

11. Assessment of the impact of the decisions of the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court of Appeal on the South African law and jurisprudence

(See paragraph 8.4.1)


At next quarterly meeting – July or August 2012 (refer to Committee programme)

12. Operational challenges at the SCA

(See paragraph 8.4.4.)

Written report with targets and timeframes

23 July 2012


At next quarterly meeting – July or August 2012 (refer to Committee programme)


To be arranged within six months of report (refer to committee programme)

13. Implementation of document management project

(See paragraph 8.4.5)

Action plan with targets and timeframes

23 July 2012

14. Judges and magistrates’ training (See paragraph 8.4.6).

Written report with timeframes

23 July 2012

15. Implementation of the recommendations flowing from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission process

(See paragraph 8.5.1.)

Written report with targets and timeframes

23 July 2012


At next quarterly meeting – July or August 2012 (refer to Committee programme)

16. Review of State Legal Services (see paragraph 7.5.1.)


Next quarter July – September 2012 (refer to Committee programme)

17. Provide detailed spending plan for vulnerable groups (women, children and persons with disabilities) (see paragraph 8.7.1.)

Quarterly briefings

At next quarterly meeting – July or August 2012 and quarterly thereafter (refer to Committee programme).

18. National Register of Sexual Offenders

(See paragraph 8.7.2)

Action plan with targets and timeframes

23 July 2012

19. Implementation of strategy to deliver improved maintenance services.

(See paragraph 8.7.3)

Written report with targets and timeframes

23 July 2012

20. Contents of Service Delivery Charter

(See paragraph 8.7.3)


Next quarter July – September 2012 (refer to Committee programme)

21. (a) Adequate resourcing of One-stop Child Justice Centre at Mangaung & (b) rollout of a One-stop Child Justice Centre in all provinces

(See paragraph 8.7.4)

Written report with targets and time frames

23 July 2012

22. Accessibility of Guardian’s Fund services

(See paragraph 8.7.6)

Written report with targets and time frames

23 July 2012

23. Re-introduction of specialised sexual offence courts

(See paragraph 9.5.6)

Written report with targets and time frames

23 July 2012

Briefing together with roleplayers

July or August 2011 (refer to Committee programme)

National Prosecuting Authority

24. Unfilled vacancies

(paragraph 9.5.3)

Written report

23 July 2012

25. Prosecutorial performance

(See paragraph 9.5.4)

Written report

23 July 2012


At next quarterly meeting – July or August 2012 (refer to Committee programme)

26. Management of informal mediations

(paragraph 9.5.5)

Written report

23 July 2012

27. Improved management of sexual offence cases (See paragraph 9.5.6)

Briefing together with role-players

July or August 2011 (refer to Committee programme)

28. Responsibility for witness protection

(See paragraph 9.5.7)

Written report

23 July 2012


16. Recommendation


16.1. The Committee is extremely concerned about efficiency gains, which cumulatively exceed R600 million, and the consequences that these cuts have over the medium term for the administration of justice, the employment of justice officials and for infrastructure.


16.2. The Committee, having considered the Budget Vote 24: Justice and Constitutional Development, supports it and recommends its approval.


17. Appreciation


17.1. The Committee thanks the Minister, the Director-General and all officials, who appeared before the Committee, for their co-operation.


17.2. The Committee also thanks the Acting National Director of Public Prosecutions and her staff for their co-operation in this process.


17.3. The Committee also wishes to thank the Public Protector and the Deputy Public Protector, the Chairperson and Commissioners of the South African Human Rights Commission, the Chairperson of Legal Aid South Africa and the Acting Head of the Special Investigating Unit, as well as all respective staff members who appeared before the Committee, for their co-operation.


Report to be considered



No related documents