ATC160415: Report of the Portfolio Committee on Justice and Correctional Services on Budget Vote 22: Office of the Chief Justice and Judicial Administration, dated 14 April 2016

Justice and Correctional Services

Report of the Portfolio Committee on Justice and Correctional Services on Budget Vote 22: Office of the Chief Justice and Judicial Administration, dated 14 April 2016
 

The Portfolio Committee on Justice and Correctional Services, having considered Budget Vote 22: Office of the Chief Justice and Judicial Administration, reports as follows:

 

 

1.1.        On 23 August 2010, the President of the Republic of South Africa proclaimed the Office of the Chief Justice (OCJ) as a national Department within the public service. The establishment of the OCJ was envisaged as the first phase towards an independent Judiciary-led court administration system in order to fully realise the Judiciary’s institutional independence in line with the Constitution and the Superior Courts Act, 2013. The Constitution Seventeenth Amendment Act, 2013, affirms the Chief Justice as head of the Judiciary responsible for establishing and monitoring the norms and standards for the exercise of judicial functions of all courts. The Superior Courts Act establishes a legislative framework for the Chief Justice to exercise his/her judicial leadership supported by the OCJ and provides for the delegation of certain functions flowing from the Act to the OCJ. The Secretary-General is the accounting officer for the OCJ. Notably, the Justice Department continues to support the administration of the magistrate’s courts.

 

1.2.        The 2016/17 financial year will be the second year of the OCJ operating as an independent department with its own budget vote, with the full responsibility of providing administrative support to the Superior Courts. The OCJ’s mandate is to support the Chief Justice in executing his/her administrative and judicial powers and duties as Head of the Judiciary and Head of the Constitutional Court, as determined by the Minister of Public Service and Administration in 2010. The OCJ has the following functions:

• Providing and coordinating legal and administrative support to the Chief Justice.
• Providing communication and relationship management services and inter-governmental and international coordination.
• Developing courts administration policy, norms and standards.
• Supporting the development of judicial policy, norms and standards;
• Supporting the judicial function of the Superior Courts.
• Supporting the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) and the South African Judicial Education Institute (SAJEI) in the execution of their mandates.
• Administering the Judges’ Remuneration and Conditions of Employment Act.

 

1.3.        In order to fulfill its mandate, the OCJ will focus during 2016/17 on capacitating the department by ensuring that funded vacant posts are filled. Information and Communication Technology (ICT) is a crucial enabler in all areas of operations within the Department. In this regard, the OCJ will ensure implementation of the Master Systems Plan to improve efficiency in both court administration processes and the OCJ’s administration.

 

1.4.        The Office of the Chief Justice presented its Strategic Plan (2015 – 2020) and Annual Performance Plan 2016/17, as well as its 2016 MTEF budget on 6 April 2015. The presentation can be obtained from the Committee Secretariat.

 

2.             Overview of the Vote for the 2016 MTEF

 

2.1.1.    The OCJ is allocated an annual budget of R1.7 billion for the 2016/17 and the budget is expected to increase to R1.9 in 2017/18. The allocation increases in real terms by 1.05% compared with 2015/16.

 

Table 1: Budget allocation for the Office of the Chief Justice per programme

Economic Classification	Adjusted Appropriation 2015/16	MTEF
		2016/17	2017/18	2018/19
	R’000	R’000	R’000	R’000
Administration	99 479	161 173	202 329	212, 96
Judicial Support and Court Administration	649 541	665 972	749 494	787 814
Judicial Education and Training	34 359	37 845	57 184	60 141
Subtotal	783 379	864 990	1 009,007	1 060 851
Direct Charge: ·         Judges’ Salaries ·         Transfers & subsidies	873 748 821 454   52 294	920 057 864 991   55 066	966 060 908 241   57 819	1 022 091 960 918   61 173
Total	1 657 127	1 785,047	1 975,067	2 082 942

 

2.1.2.    Overall the Judicial Support and Court Administration programme receives the largest allocation of the budget in 2016/17 (at 77%), followed by the Administration programme (at 18%).

 

2.1.3.    The operationalization of the Superior Courts Act is to be prioritised over the medium term. There is increased funding in the amounts of R34.5 million in 2017/18 and R36.3 million in 2018/19. These amounts go to the Judicial Support and Court Administration programme for additional capacity in the Judge Presidents’ offices to co-ordinate judicial functions and to ensure that judicial norms and standards are implemented, monitored and reported on.

 

2.1.4.    In order to facilitate the appointment and training of judicial officers, the OCJ also receives an increase of R17.2 million in 2017/18 and R17.9 million in 2018/19, which goes to Judicial Education and Research. This programme is expected to increase from R37.8 million in 2016/17 to R60.1 million in 2018/19.

 

2.1.5.    The allocation to programmes is as follows:

• The allocation for Administration increased from R99.4 million in 2015/16 to R161.1 million in 2016/17 because of funding allocated for office accommodation and the filling of vacant posts, as well as the additional allocation to cover the costs for the public service wage agreement.
• The allocation to Judicial Support and Administration increased from R649.5 million in 2015/16 to R665.9 million in 2016/17. The spending focus during the MTEF will be on improving the court system through an effective and efficient case-management.
• The allocation for Judicial Education and Research increased from R34.3 million in 2015/16 to R37.8 million in 2016/17. The spending focus will be on capacitating the SAJEI in support of the NDP and ensuring that the institute delivers on its mandate. Further, a total of 225 judicial training and educational courses are planned for 2016/17.

 

 

3.     Office of the Chief Justice (OCJ): Strategic and annual plans

 

3.1.        The Secretary-General presented the OCJ’s Strategic Plan 2015-2020 and 2016/17 Annual Performance Plan.

 

3.2.        The OCJ supports the Judiciary in its contribution to Chapter 14 of the National Development Plan (NDP); promoting Accountability and Fighting Corruption by strengthening judicial governance and the rule of law, by:

• Accelerating reforms to implement a judiciary-led court administration.
• Ensuring an efficient court system.
• Reducing court administration efficiencies.
• Ensuring access to justice.
• Ensuring judicial accountability.
• Providing training to the judiciary through SAJEI.

 

3.3.        Over the MTSF the OCJ has aligned its plans with the NDP and Medium Term Strategic Framework (MTSF) 2014 – 2019 as follows:

• Administration is linked to Outcome 12: An efficient and effective development-orientated public service.
• The programmes Judicial Support and Court Administration and Judicial Education and Research are both linked to Chapter 14 of the NDP: Strengthening judicial governance and the rule of law.

 

3.4.        The OCJ has the following broad strategic outcome-orientated goals.

• Capacitate the Office of the Chief Justice.
• Support the Chief Justice in fulfilling his/her functions as Head of the Judiciary.
• Render effective and efficient administration and technical support to the Superior Courts.

3.5.        The OCJ has identified the following key strategic risks and mitigation strategies:

 

Table 3: Strategic risks and interventions in mitigation

Strategic Objective	Risk	Mitigation interventions
Administration
Ensure good governance in the administration of the department	Transitional challenges as a result of transfer of functions from the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development	·         Development of framework of engagement ·         Service level agreement regulating shared services finalised and implemented
Judicial Support and Administration
Ensure  the  effective and efficient administration of the Superior Courts and the Judicial Service Commission	Inability to attract and retain skilled Registrars and Inadequate IT infrastructure and business operating systems	Continuous engagement on the review of the OSD-related challenges
	Inadequate IT infrastructure and business operating system	·         Master System Plan developed ·         IT Network infrastructure upgrade
Judicial Education and Support
Enhance skills and knowledge of serving & aspirant Judicial Officers to perform optimally	Inadequate resources to provide training to the Aspiring and Serving Judicial Officers.	·         Developing e-learning system. ·         Partnership with relevant stakeholders ·         Employment of judicial educators

 

4.     Office of the Chief Justice: Programmes

 

4.1.        Programme 1: Administration

 

4.1.1.    The purpose of this programme is to provide strategic leadership, management and support services to the department. The programme consists of the following sub-programmes: 

·         The Management subprogramme provides administrative, planning, monitoring, evaluation and reporting functions necessary to ensure effective functioning of the Department. 

·         The Corporate Services subprogramme provides an integrated Human Resources Management (HRM), Information & Communication Technology, Security Management and Communication support services to the Judiciary and the department. 

·         The Finance Administration subprogramme provides overall financial, asset and supply chain management services to the Judiciary and the department.

·         The Internal Audit and Risk Management subprogramme provides overall internal audit and risk management services to the department and the superior courts.

·         The Office Accommodation subprogramme provides for acquisition of office accommodation for the department.

 

1. Performance indicators and targets for 2016/17 include the following:

 

Table 4: Administration: Performance indicators and annual targets 2016/17

Performance Indicator	Targets
	2015/16	2016/17	2017/18	2018/19
Annual Performance Plan (APP) tabled within prescribed timelines	APP tabled within prescribed timelines	APP tabled within prescribed timelines	APP tabled within prescribed timelines	APP tabled within prescribed timelines
ICT Master Plan developed and implemented	Plan developed and finalised	Implementation initiated	Critical systems developed and piloted	Roll-out of critical systems
Number of compliant financial performance reports submitted	12	12	12	12
Number of asset registers produced	2	2	2	2
Combined assurance plan developed and implemented	-	Plan developed	Plan rolled out	Plan reviewed and improved
Number of strategic and operational risk registers developed and updated	4	8	8	8
Percentage of audit findings addressed	-	80%	90%	100%
Percentage of reported fraud cases investigated	100%	100%	100%	100

 

4.2.        Programme 2: Judicial Support and Court Administration

 

1. This programme provides judicial support and court administration services to the Superior Courts, including secretariat and administrative support services to the Judicial Service Commission. The programme consists of the following sub-programmes: 
   • The Administration of Superior Courts subprogramme provides administrative and technical support to the Superior Courts, monitor the overall performance of the Superior Courts, and enhance judicial stakeholder relations.  
   • The Judicial Service Commission subprogramme is responsible for secretariat and administrative support services to the Judicial Service Commission to effectively perform their constitutional and legislative mandates.  
   • The Constitutional Court adjudicates on constitutional matters and any other matter that is of general public importance.
   • The Supreme Court of Appeal adjudicates appeals in any matters arising from the High Court of South Africa or a court of a status similar to the High Court.
   • The High Courts adjudicate and provide resolutions on criminal and civil disputes and hear any appeals from the lower courts.
   • The Specialized Courts adjudicate over various types of matters excluded from the jurisdiction of the Divisions of High Courts and Magistrate Courts. These include adjudication on labour, land, electoral and competition matters.

 

1. Performance indicators and targets for 2016/17 are as follows:

 

Table 5: Judicial Support and Court Administration - Performance indicators and annual targets

Performance Indicator	Targets
	2015/16	2016/17	2017/18	2018/19
Number of Superior Courts performance monitoring reports produced	3	5	5	5
Percentage of default judgments finalised by Registrars	55%	65%	70%	75%
Percentage of taxation of legal costs finalised	62%	65%	70%	75%
Number of training workshops on case management conducted for Registrars, clerks, etc.	-	4	4	4
Number of warrants of release delivered within one day of release granted	-	100%	100%	100%
Percentage of cases finalised (CC)	80%	80%	80%	80%
Percentage of cases finalised (SCA)	80%	80%	80%	80%
Number of cases in the High Court which are on the roll for more than 12 months	206	156	106	56
Percentage of cases finalised (SCA)	80%	80%	80%	80%
Number of cases in the High Court which are on the roll for more than 12 months	206	156	106	56
Percentage of criminal cases finalised with verdict	52%	54%	56%	58
Percentage of civil cases finalised	52%	54%	56%	58%
Percentage of reserved judgments finalised in all superior courts	70%	70%	70%	70%
Percentage of Labour Court cases finalised	52%	54%	56%	58%
Percentage of land claim cases finalised	52%	54%	56%	58%
Percentage of electoral cases finalised	90%	90%	90%	90%
Percentage of competition appeal cases finalised	72%	72%	72%	72%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4.3.        Programme 3: Judicial Education and Support

 

4.3.1.    Judicial Education and Support provides education programmes to Judicial Officers, including policy development and research services for the optimal administration of justice.

 

4.3.2.    The programme has the following sub-programmes: 

·         The South African Judicial Education Institute (SAJEI) provides judicial education for Judicial Officers and training of aspirant Judicial Officers.

·         The Judicial Policy and Research subprogramme provides advisory opinions on policy development, research and regulatory support services to enhance the functioning of the Judiciary.

 

1. Performance indicators and targets for 2016/17 are as follows:

 

Table 6: Judicial Education and Support - Performance indicators and annual targets

Performance Indicator	Targets
	2015/16	2016/17	2017/18	2018/19
M&E framework for judicial education developed and implemented	100%	100%	100%	100%
Percentage of legal advisory opinions on policy development and research services provided within 15 days of receipt	100%	100%	100%	100%

 

 

5.    

 

 

 

 

 

Committee’s observations

 

 

 

 

5.1.        The Committee notes that transitional challenges relating to the transfer of functions from the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development to the OCJ remain. The Committee, however, is pleased at the interventions to resolve these challenges and the resulting progress: The Departments have finalised and are implementing a service level agreement that regulates shared services. The Committee requests that the OCJ continues to report quarterly on this.

 

5.2.        The OCJ has alerted the Committee that it will not be able to operationalize the Mpumalanga High Court once it is completed, as there is no money in the baseline for this. Further, in 2017/18 and 2018/19, there are budget cuts in the amount of R57 million. The National Treasury has informed the OCJ that it may resubmit its Budget request relating to funding for the Mpumalanga High Court later in the year. The Committee reminds the OCJ that the Budgetary Review and Recommendation Report process also provides it with an opportunity to alert the Committee to its forward funding needs for this item.

 

5.3.        So far, there appears to be little information available on how well the Provincial Efficiency Enhancement Committees (PEECs) are working, although the Committee is assured that they are indeed meeting. The Committee, therefore, asks that the OCJ provide the Committee with a written report on the composition and functions of these Committee and the challenges that they face by 30 July 2016, and be prepared to update the Committee quarterly on this.

 

5.4.        The Committee reiterates its supports for a single judiciary under the leadership of the Chief Justice. In this regard, it would seem that there are still a number of obstacles that must be resolved before the magistracy and the administration of the Lower Courts can been transferred to the OCJ. The Committee is pleased to learn that the Judges’ President are already overseeing the magistracy to some extent through the PEECs but that the necessary regulations to address the oversight role of the Judges’ President in this regard have yet to be finalized. The Committee urges the Justice Department to expedite these.

 

Further, the finalization of a Lower Courts Bill is key. In this regard, the Committee notes that the Justice Department has indicated that it intends to introduce a Lower Courts Bill by September 2017.

 

5.5.        The Committee is extremely concerned at the lack of progress in resolving the land question and the role of the Land Claims Court in this regard. In its view, the Court is not doing enough: The land question is at the heart of poverty, unemployment and inequality and the failure to settle land claims in a timely fashion may encourage people to take the law into their own hands. Given the importance of these cases, the Committee feels that the target for finalisation of cases in the Land Claims Court is set far too low. The Committee is informed that together the OCJ and the Justice Department have decided to hold a workshop for all relevant stakeholders. The Chief Justice has also been made aware of the Committee’s concerns. In addition, the OCJ intends to meet with the Department of Land Reform and Rural Development to discuss the matter. The Committee appreciates the OCJ’s response to its concerns and asks that it be kept informed of developments on a quarterly basis.

 

5.6.        The Committee is concerned that the allocation for judicial education and training is inadequate. Last year, the OCJ identified inadequate funding of SAJEI as a challenge and the situation remains largely unchanged. In the Committee’s view, the SAJEI performs a vital role in providing judicial and in supporting transformation initiatives and should be properly resourced.

 

5.7.        The Committee is further of the view that transformation of the judiciary entails far more than merely addressing issues of representativity but also requires transformation of the substantive law as well. Pending the finalisation of the Traditional Courts Bill, the Committee feels that the status and recognition of indigenous African law remains subordinate to that of other laws in this country and the opportunity to develop a jurisprudence that is infused with the principles of Ubuntu is lost. The Committee welcomes that SAJEI has been involved in training of traditional leaders with the Department of Co-operative Governance and Traditional Affairs.

 

5.8.        The Committee notes that the OCJ is unable to make use of the CJS Revamp/IJS Budget, which the Justice Department administers, as National Treasury has resolved that its systems are not yet at the stage of integration. The Committee, however, is concerned, as the OCJ plays a key role in the Criminal Justice System (CJS) Revamp project. The Committee requests that the OCJ provide it with a detailed written report by 30 July 2016.

 

 

6.     Recommendation

 

6.1.        The Committee, having considered the Budget Vote 22: Office of the Chief Justice and Judicial Administration, supports it and recommends that it be approved. The Democratic Alliance rejected the Committee Report.

 

 

 

7.     Appreciation

 

7.1.        The Committee thanks the Secretary-General: Office of the Chief Justice and her team for appearing before the Committee.

 

 

Report to be considered