ATC121129: Report of the Select Committee on Security and Constitutional Development on the Traditional Courts Bill public hearings held in Parliament 18 to 21 September 2012, dated 28 November 2012.
NCOP Security and Justice
Report of
the Select Committee on Security and Constitutional Development on the
Traditional Courts Bill public hearings held in Parliament 18 to 21 September
2012, dated 28 November 2012.
1.
BACKGROUND
1.1
The Minister for Justice and
Constitutional Development,
in November 2011, requested the introduction of the
Traditional Courts Bill in the National Council of Provinces (NCOP)
, in terms of NCOP Rule
186. The Select Committee on Security and Constitutional Development then
formally introduced the Bill in the NCOP on 25 January 2012 in terms of the
said Rule.
1.2
The JTM, in terms of Joint Rule 160(6), classified the
Traditional Courts Bill [B 1 2012]
,
as a section 76 Bill and as a Bill falling within the ambit of section 18(1)(a)
of the Traditional Leadership and Governance Framework Act, 2003 (Act No 41 of
2003).
1.3
An explanatory summary of the Bill and prior notice of its
introduction was published in Government Gazette No 34850 of 13 December 2011.
The Select Committee received 57 submissions on the Bill from NGOs, civil
society and communities. The initial 2008 Bill was also referred to the
National House of Traditional Leaders (NHTL) for comment which was received on
14 March 2012.
1.4
The Select Committee received
a briefing on the Bill from the Department of Justice and Constitutional
Development on 7 March 2012, and with agreement of the special delegates and
permanent delegates, referred the matter to the legislatures for public
hearings.
2.
COMMITTEE PROPOSAL TO HOST FURTHER PUBLIC HEARINGS ON THE TRADITIONAL
COURTS BILL
2.1
The Select Committee received
eight negotiating mandates from provinces and one request from the
2.2
The Select Committee
considered the Mpumalanga request for extension, a request for a meeting by the
Minister for Women, Children and People with Disabilities, national
stakeholders and interested parties that had not had an opportunity to present
their concerns on the Bill, and agreed to request the Chairperson of the
Councils consideration to extend the deadline of the Traditional Courts Bill,
in terms of NCOP Rule 240(3). The extension was aligned with
the statutory deadline of
30 December 2012 by which the legislation envisaged by the Bill should be
enacted to repeal the Black Administration Act.
2.3
The Committee advertised for
further submissions on the Bill and, after short listing, held hearings in
Parliament from 18-21 September 2012.
3.
SHORTLISTED STAKEHOLDERS
3.1
The Committee had short listed the following stakeholders to
make oral submissions:
a.
Department of Justice and Constitutional Development
b.
Department of Women, Children and People with Disabilities
c.
National House of Traditional Leaders
d.
Submission No 1: Ms SE Mthimkulu
e.
Submission No 2A,B,C: Association For Rural
Advancement (AFRA)
f.
Submission No 3: Rural Womens Movement
g.
Submission
No 4: L Maluleke Traditional Community & CPA
h.
Submission
No 17: Silwanendlala Ubuntu Farmers Agricultural Co-op
i.
Submission
No 18: Womens Legal Centre
j.
Submission No 19: Law, Race and Gender Research Unit (UCT)
k.
Submission No 20: South African Human Rights Commission
l.
Submission
No 21C:
m.
Submission No 24:
Law Society of
n.
Submission No 27:
o.
Submission No 28: Mary de Haas: Independent Kwazulu Natal
p.
Submission No 36: The Lesbian and Gay Equality Project
q.
Submission No 51:
r.
Submission
No 52: Mr P Mahashe: Tseseng Witsieshoek
s.
Submission No 63: Peotona: Independent
submission
t.
Submission No 64: Sonke Gender Justice Network
u.
Submission
No 67: Land Access Movement of
3.2
The following additional stakeholders were granted time to
present at the hearings:
a.
Legal Resources Centre
b.
Council for the Advancement of the South African Constitution
c.
Commission for Gender Equality
d.
EC National House of Traditional Leaders
e.
The National Union of Metalworkers of
4.
THEMATIC SUMMARY OF ORAL
SUBMISSIONS ON THE TRADITIONAL COURTS BILL
4.1
The Department of Justice
and Constitutional Development
i
The proceedings began with a presentation by the Department
of Justice and Constitutional Development (the Department), which outlined the
Bills history and the processes that had been followed to date.
ii
The Bill had gone through numerous stages of development such
as:
a.
the South African Law Reform Commissionprocess in 2003;
b.
a Policy framework formulation and approval by Cabinet in
2008;
c.
introduction of the Bill in the National Assembly in 2008
followed by parliamentary hearings;
d.
withdrawal and reintroduction of the Bill in the NCOP in
December 2011; and
e.
provincial and parliamentary hearings in 2012.
iii
The Departments presentation noted that the time, money and
public emotion spent to reach this stage of the process argued against any
decision to reinvent the wheel.
[1]
iv
Due to this the Department presented a list of amendments for
the Committees consideration to address the concerns raised by the public and
are included in the themes discussed at the public hearing and summarised in
this report.
5.
INTENTION OF THE BILL
5.1
The National House of Traditional Leaders (NHTL) noted that
traditional courts were a part of customary law, are in existence and would
continue to function whether the Bill was withdrawn or not. The NHTL argued
that the Bills primary function was to promote uniformity and regulate
proceedings of the informal traditional courts currently in existence. The Bill
could not address unacceptable customary practices such as ukuthwala as there
were other avenues available to deal with these practices.
5.2
The Department noted that its intention was always to create
a framework within which traditional justice could be dispensed, and a vehicle
through which customary law could find expression and development as envisioned
by the Constitution.
[2]
6.
INTERNATIONAL OBLIGATIONS
6.1
The Womens Legal
Centre (WLC) noted that the Convention on Prevention of Elimination of all
forms of Discrimination against Women,
placed an obligation on
i
establishing
equality with regard to legal capacity,
ii
right to fair trial
and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal,
iii
according women the
same rights in civil matters, as was accorded to men, and
iv
treating women the
same as men at all stages of courts and tribunals.
6.2
The WLC cited the
Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights that required
i
eliminate harmful
cultural and traditional practices,
ii
reform existing
discriminatory laws,
iii
establish equal
representation of women in the judiciary and law enforcement services, and
iv
establish gender
representivity in the determination of cultural policy.
6.3
The South African
Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) agreed that the Bill would not assist in
adhering to the obligations
6.4
The Commission for
Gender Equality (CGE) noted that certain instruments, such as the SADC
Protocols, required
6.5
Recommendation
i
The SAHRC proposed
the Committee analyse whether the Bill complied with international conventions
and laws placing obligations on
7.
ISSUES PERTAINING TO WOMEN
AND THE PROMOTION OF EQUALITY
7.1
Representation of women in
Traditional Councils and promotion of equality
i
The NHTL representatives argued that it was not correct that
women were excluded, discriminated against, or were not represented in the NHTL
or Traditional Councils. The NHTL pointed out that one third of all traditional
leadership positions were reserved for women. The NHTL acknowledged that parity
had not yet been reached but that this was a matter that Parliament had to take
a stronger stance on with the existing structures in place as Parliament had
the duty to do oversight and ensure accountability. The NHTL pointed to the
reconstruction of the Traditional Councils and the need to fund transformation
in areas such as
ii
The Womens Legal Centre (WLC) noted that, although the
Traditional Councils were composed of one third women, that this was misleading
in the context of Traditional Courts as the Bill currently did not stipulate
that Traditional Courts would be run through the Traditional Councils nor did
it stipulate a gender composition for the Traditional Courts. The WLC felt that
gender representation should not be mere tokenism or setting of quotas but
should address the real needs of empowering women.
iii
The Department Women, Children and People with Disabilities
(DWCPD) led by Minister Xingwana, presented the equality clause in the Bill of
Rights as
super-ceding traditional,
cultural and religious laws. The Minister argued that equality before the law
included equality in terms of the administration of that law and that the Bill
had to specifically enable the participation of women in traditional courts.
The Minister agreed that progressive male traditional leaders existed, but
noted that there were also traditional courts where women were not allowed to
speak let alone represent themselves.
iv
Mr Peter Mahase, a Headman from the Eastern Free State,
described the workings of the Traditional Courts and Traditional Councils in
the
v
Ms Emily Tjale a
representative from the Land Access Movement of South Africa (LAMOSA) described
her life experience with Traditional Courts in her community. She explained
that women were not permitted to approach the chief directly for access to land
but had to do so through a male representative. Due to this the interpretation
would often become distorted. She felt that women should be able to represent
themselves in the Traditional Courts.
vi
The Sonke Gender Justice Network (the Network) felt the Bill
had done nothing to ensure that the equality of women had been taken into
account. It noted that
vii
Ms Samantha Waterhouse from the Community Law Centre,
University of the Western Cape (CLC) noted that although the Bill had tried to
address representation, in reality it paid lip service to it and
that would not ensure real equality.
viii
Ms Nosama Ndlovu an attorney from the South African Women
Lawyers Association who spoke as a guest of the EC NHTL (SAWLA) stated that the
Bill did protect the rights of women. She directed the committee to cultural
practices in the
7.2
Recommendation
i
Gender representivity
a.
The Department proposed that there should be a quota for
women with public participation to ensure there is sufficient gender
representivity in the courts.
Traditional leaders should also be democratically elected with a quota
of posts reserved for women in the structure.
b.
The Department further proposed that Traditional Councils
should determine the quota of women who must participate in the traditional
court and outline their specific roles during a court sitting.
c.
The DWCPD proposed an amendment to clause 15 to read, a
traditional leader, or woman, or man of good standing recommended by the
Community as a designated presiding officer of a traditional court.
d.
The Sonke Gender Justice Network felt that the call for equality
should be exactly that and called for 50% representation of women in the
traditional courts. The DWCPD supported this and also called for 50%
representation of women in Traditional Councils and the traditional courts. The
Minister noted this would be in line with the Womens Empowerment and Gender
Equality Bill.
e.
Mr Mahatlani expressed his support for women to be involved
in Traditional Councils.
f.
LAMOSA requested the Bill to clearly stipulate that women must
represent themselves and be granted equal rights and opportunities.
8.
FUNCTIONS OF TRADITIONAL
COURTS
8.1
Punitive versus
restorative remedies
i
The NHTL was in favour of empowering traditional leaders to
enforce their own judgements but stressed that judgments were always imposed to
rectify and restore relationships rather than punitive sanctions.
ii
The South African
Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) differed in their view and noted that the Bill
did not clearly emphasize whether it was based on a court system or a dispute
resolution mechanism. The SAHRC made reference to Chapter 12 of the
Constitution and its intention with regard to courts whilst the Bill noted that
it aimed to assist with dispute resolution and restoring healthy relationships.
The SAHRC noted that references to service without remuneration in the Bill
referred to forced labour and
that this
would be in conflict with the UN Convention on Forced Labour. The SAHRC argued
further that any imposition of sentence should not inhibit the constitutional
rights of any persons, but that the Bill did not clearly define how the
iii
The Commission for Gender Equality (CGE) was similarly
opposed to sanctions that included forced labour and advised that evictions would
not pass constitutional muster.
iv
Mr Peter Mahase had explained that traditional courts
followed the approach of reconciling communal difference rather than imposing
punitive sanctions. He stressed that apologies were an important part of the
process.
8.2
Bill does not recognise
different tiers of dispute resolution
i
The Law Race and Gender Equality (LRG) submission expressed
concern that the Bill mainly focussed on the Court as the only arbiter of
dispute resolutions in the community. The LRG explained that most disputes were
successfully settled through tiers involving heads of families or other
community leaders before it came to traditional courts.
ii
The Peotona submission agreed that other dispute resolution
mechanisms exist in traditional communities and should be incorporated into the
traditional court system. Peotona stressed that dispute resolution began at the
grassroots level before it ever escalated to the court arena.
iii
Mr Peter Mahase submitted that a proper customary law system
followed a hierarchy of dispute resolution and operated through consultation
with heads of families and leaders before a dispute escalated to the court.
8.3
Legal representation
i
The South African Women Lawyers Association (SAWLA),
presenting on behalf of the Eastern Cape National House of Traditional Leaders,
noted that the publics concerns regarding the lack of legal representation in
traditional courts was unfounded as the Small Claims Court did accept legal
representation either.
ii
The Association for Rural Advancement (AFRA) was concerned
that by not allowing for legal representation the Bill would be in conflict
with the Constitution as the right to a fair trial was an imperative.
iii
Peotona expressed the same concern that without legal
representation women would be left without the ability to effectively contend
for their rights.
iv
The SAHRC noted that due process and legal representation
were not required by the Bill and that this would be in conflict with the
provision of the right to a fair trial.
v
The Law Society of South Africa (LSSA) agreed that without
legal representation the Bill would be problematic. The fact that legal
representation was excluded from criminal matters infringed upon the right to
legal representation. The LSSA argued that a legal representative served the
function of ensuring that the accused or a complainant was not prejudiced in
any way. The fear is that rural communities would be denied the right to a fair
trial.
vi
The Legal Resources Centre (LRC) supported the call for legal
representation noting that its exclusion infringed on the rights of individuals
to a fair trial.
8.4
Appealing decisions
of
traditional courts
i
The Manyeleti Community Property Association and Land Claim
(Manyeleti CPA and LC) submission outlined their personal experience with the
unilateral decision of the Traditional Council to evict the community from
their land. The Manyeleti CPA and LC feared that the Bill while allowed for the
imposition of sanctions, such as the eviction from land, and having an
inadequate appeal system, would continue the apartheid practices of land
evictions the Manyeleti community had been subjected to in the past.
ii
The Land Access
Movement of South Africa (LAMOSA) lamented the inadequate appeal system noting
that the traditional courts would have to deal with complex issues related to
land claims and rights.
iii
SAWLA EC NHTL acknowledged the appeals system contained in
section 9 noting it would confer greater accountability on the current systems.
iv
The LRC disagreed
arguing that the appeal structures were inadequate and that the proper
structures would strengthen the development of customary laws.
v
The CGE agreed that
a proper appeal structure was necessary for the development of any legal
system.
8.5
Opting out or in to system of traditional courts
i
The submissions
from Afra, Peotona, DWCPD, CLC, CASAC, the LRC, the LRG, Mrs M De Haas and the
SAHRC amongst others all supported an opt-out clause.
ii
The Law, Race and
Gender Unit of the University of Cape Town (LRG) argued that for customary law
to develop and be effective it required the buy in of the community to uphold
the customary laws and be its custodian. If people were not happy with the system
it had to provide the option of opting out of the system.
iii
The SAHRC noted the
Bill had defined jurisdictions in terms of apartheid era geographical
boundaries and that due to this communities would again be subjected to laws it
did not necessarily support.
iv
The Council for
the Advancement of the South African Constitution (Casac) strongly opposed the
fact that people could not opt out of the traditional
court system.
Casac pointed out that the segregation of communities along
ethnic and tribal identities was a contradiction in terms of the founding
principles of the South African Constitution. Casac further stressed that traditional
leadership had been tainted by colonial and apartheid systems and the Bill, by
defining jurisdictions in terms of geographical boundaries, entrenched the
effects of these systems. It was especially disconcerting to Casac that rural
citizens had no ability to opt out of the system.
v
Mrs De Haas supported this argument by
referring to the history of the colonial and apartheid eras influence on the
institution of traditional leadership and posited that traditional leadership
had been a construct of these systems. She supported the need for communities
to have the ability to opt out of the system but similarly to buy into customary
systems.
vi
SAWLA and the EC NHTL did not support the
notion of opting out of the system, and pointed out that none of the
submissions denied the existence of the traditional justice system. SAWLA felt
that any system would always have dissatisfied parties or grievances with
procedures of the court. However, SAWLA conceded that there was a need for
communities to affirm the traditional justice system and its values.
8.6
Matters pertaining to
Children
i
The NHTL, in relation to section 5 of the Bill, supported the
Traditional Courts jurisdiction to hear marital disputes, custody and
guardianship matters arising from customary marriages.
ii
The DWCPD argued against this pointing to the existence of
traditional practices such as ukutwala that were harmful to women and children.
The Minister noted that these practices promoted domestic violence because in
many instances domestic violence was used as a tool to prevent women from
escaping. These customary marriages were often practiced on girls as young as
nine years old. Furthermore, the Minister was concerned that the Bill made no
mention of the equality of children and did not afford children protection from
these harmful practices.
She concluded
that the Bill contravened childrens right to equality as these harmful
practices of early marriages impact negatively on the childs right to
education, health and development. The Minister urged the Committee to consult
with disability organisations and childrens sector groups to weigh the impact
of the Bill on these vulnerable groups.
iii
The CLC pointed out that the Bill conflicted with other
legislation that regulated children in conflict with the law and that were
aimed at protecting children. The CLC also urged the Committee to consult with
the Departments of Health, Social Development, Education, NGOs, and with
children themselves
8.7
Recommendations:
i
Amendments to the Short Title
/ Definition and Long Title
a.
The Department of Justice and Constitutional Development (the
Department) submitted that the Bill required transformation, taking it from a Traditional
Court to an alternative dispute mechanism and proposed the title should be
amended to:
Resolution of
Certain Disputes by Traditional Councils Bill, 2012
ii
Move from retributive sanctions to restorative awards
a.
The DWCPD proposed that reference to forced labour in section
10(1)(a) be removed as a possible sanction.
b.
The DWCPD further proposed that Traditional Courts should
review the feasibility of the sanctions imposed and that the sanction should
also take cognisance of the aggrieved partys level of vulnerability.
c.
The SAHRC advised that evictions would contravene sections 25
and 26 of the Constitution.
d.
The Department submitted that in redressing a situation the
court must be aimed at restoring harmed relations between parties to a dispute
or imposing compensation that is aimed at the restoration of harmony in the
community itself.
e.
The following awards or directives were proposed:
·
Compensation (in monetary terms or livestock);
·
an apology;
·
an order to discontinue the harmful act;
·
a reprimand;
·
an order to keep the peace;
·
any form of training, orientation or rehabilitation
consistent with customary law and the Constitution and is aimed at enhancing
reconciliation (Ubuntu); and
·
guidance, counselling or advice.
iii
Enforcement of awards
a.
The Department proposed that f
ailure to comply with an
award or directive of the
b.
The Department proposed that an appeal to a court of law
should not be permissible.
iv
Integration of traditional
courts with Traditional Councils
a.
The Department proposed that Traditional Courts should also
be integrated into the Traditional Councils, which are democratic institutions
where all sectors of society are represented.
v
Recognition of tiers or
levels of dispute resolution
a.
Peotona proposed that a multi level system of dispute
resolution should be incorporated into the Bill.
b.
The Department recognised the different tiers of dispute
resolution in customary law and acknowledged that dispute resolution starts at
the family and if it is not resolved at this level moves to the headman/woman.
If the headman/woman could not resolve the matter it is then escalated to a
senior traditional leader.
c.
The Department noted the Traditional Council may use its
discretion to refer a matter to these levels before dealing with the matter.
vi
Regulating procedures of
the court
a.
The Department proposed the Bill must provide for procedures
that regulate proceedings before a Traditional Council sitting as a court,
including the manner of arriving at a decision by the Council sitting as a
court for purposes of the envisaged integration.
vii
Addressing concerns of opting out of the system
a.
The Department proposed that a person given notice to appear
before a Traditional Council must attend but may provide reasons, in writing,
for not submitting to the authority of the Council.
b.
The matter would be heard in their absence and the court may
provide such assistance or advice as is required to assist the aggrieved party.
c.
The Department submits that the court should not take a
decision that is legally binding on the absent party.
viii
Absence of legal representation
a.
The Departments proposals to integrate the Traditional Court
in the Traditional Council and the move away from retributive sanctions to
restorative sanctions is seen by the Department as addressing the need for
legal representation as this would be necessary under a retributive
system.
b.
The CGE did not agree that Traditional Courts should be
allowed to deal with criminal matters, as the lack of legal representation
meant that a fair trial was not guaranteed.
ix
Appeals
a.
The NHTL was in favour of appeals to an independent court.
b.
Ms M De Haas supported the individuals right to appeal.
c.
The SAHRC acknowledged the right to an appeal system and
proposed that the Magistrates Courts should develop the competency to
adjudicate customary law appeals. The SAHRC noted the absence of an integrated
appeal system within the Traditional Councils.
d.
CASAC supported the SAHRC to refer appeals to the
e.
The Department of Justice and Constitutional Development was
opposed to an appeals system as it felt that the formal justice system imposed
a different value system to that of traditional courts. The Department stated
that
appeals as applied in courts of law should not be
equated with the referral of a dispute from one layer to another within the
traditional justice system.
An appeal to
a court of law should not be permissible.
x
Marriage, Children and
Divorce
a.
The CLC believed that traditional courts should not deal with
any matters affecting children, including property, living arrangements,
custody, marriage and divorce and criminal matters, or, if this was not
accepted, then the list of matters should be severely limited.
b.
The DWCPD proposed that all cases affecting children,
guardianship, custody and maintenance must be decided in line with the existing
legislation and that
marriage and divorce should remain in the
civil courts.
c.
Mr Peter Mahase advised that all procedures should be open
and transparent so that members of the community were aware of the processes
followed and decisions taken.
9.
ADMINISTRATION OF
TRADITIONAL COURTS
9.1
Recording of proceedings of Traditional Courts
i
SAHRC believed that
proper recording of meetings was a requirement and procuring the proper
equipment would assist the courts.
ii
SAWLA EC NHTL noted
the calls for mechanical recordings and agreed with the suggestions but
cautioned that problems of interpretation could still arise as each culture
interpreted the application of customary law differently.
iii
The LSSA also proposed the introduction of
mechanical recordings.
9.2
Training of presiding
officers and officials
i
The NHTL requested training for all court officials and not
merely seconding officials to fill gaps.
ii
The LSSA agreed that judicial officers and court officials needed
priority with regard to training.
9.3
Payment of fines
i
The NHTL requested that the payment of fines should be made
to a trust account held by the Traditional Council.
ii
The DWCPD proposed that fines or taxes paid by rural
communities to Chiefs should be regulated, audited and should be used for rural
development and scholarships for rural children.
iii
The Vulamasango Singene Mnquma District agreed that fines and
taxes should be regulated and that these funds should be paid into a social
fund that would assist rural people to improve their situation.
9.4
Recommendations
i
Training of traditional leaders, members of Traditional
Council
a.
The Department
acknowledged that training
is an important element of the traditional justice system and should be
extended to all people involved in the traditional justice system including the
development of customary law.
b.
LAMOSA proposed that traditional courts should be subject to
the same checks and balances as other courts, and the same training should be
in place. Traditional leadership must be accountable to Parliament and
oversight structures.
c.
The DWCPD felt that the presiding officer should not
necessarily be a senior traditional leader, but could also be any woman or man
of standing in the community, appointed in consultation with the community.
d.
The CASAC requested recognition of mediators who were elected
for their wisdom and experience as not all disputes were resolved at a
traditional leaders level.
e.
The SAWLA EC NHTL requested that any training curriculum should
be designed by traditional leaders.
ii
The need for national legislation to ensure uniformity
a.
The Department agreed that there is a need for uniformity and
standardisation of processes, whilst at the same time recognising the diversity
and peculiar nature of the different cultures and customs is a matter that must
be borne in mind.
10.
SUBMISSIONS DETAILING UNCONSTITUTIONAL
PROVISIONS OF THE BILL AND OTHER MATTERS OF CONCERN
10.1
Principle of separation of
powers
i
The LAMOSA noted the fact that there would be no separation
of powers between claimant and presiding officer would be unconstitutional.
ii
The LSSA stated
that there were insufficient checks and balances in the Bill. It explained that
the Bill fostered power without accountability and blurred the separation of
powers by giving Chiefs the power to act as administrators, legislators and
judicial officers.
iii
The LRC submitted the failure to observe the separation of
the legislative, judicial and administrative functions of the Bill would render
it unconstitutional.
iv
The CGE and PEOTONA
presentations agreed that the separation of powers was not observed and could
be challenged as
it allowed traditional leaders to pronounce upon, impose
sanctions and enforce them.
10.2
Perpetuation of apartheid
boundaries
i
The Law Race and Gender Unit (LRG) of the
a.
The Bill was linked directly to the Traditional Leadership
and Governance Framework Act, which entrenched apartheid boundaries making it fundamentally
flawed.
b.
There were 1 322
disputes that had already been registered in relation to Tribal Council
boundaries that had not yet been resolved.
c.
The Bill created a second-class of citizenry by segregating
the legal systems and subjecting these citizens to that system.
ii
Mr Mahatlani referred
to the apartheid era forced removals that established the present boundaries that
were the basis for the Bill and noted that this perpetuated the colonial
injustices of the past.
iii
AFRA raised a
similar concern noting that the failed to break with the colonial past and
confined people to tribal authorities that many did not recognise.
iv
The SAHRC concern
centred on the lack of an opt out clause as the Bill was reliant on geographical
boundaries that were no longer recognised.
v
CASAC stressed that the Bill entrenched
existing leadership that perpetuated the
apartheid system and that the notion of segregating communities against ethnic
and tribal identities made a mockery of the Constitution. CASAC noted this was
especially disconcerting when there was no option to opt out of the system.
10.3
Perpetuation of misogyny
and patriarchal society
i
The Sonke Gender Justice Network that, contrary to the
excellent provisions of the Constitution, the Bill perpetuated misogyny and a
patriarchal society.
10.4
Right to a fair trial
i
Many of the submissions noted the Bill was in conflict with
the Constitution as it did not allow for legal representation that, could be
argued, would not lend to a fair trial.
10.5
Retributive sanctions
i
The SAHRC advised that land evictions would contravene
sections 25 and 26 of the Constitution.
10.6
Discriminatory nature of
Bill
i
PEOTONA saw the Bill as unconstitutional as it was discriminatory
and non-inclusive in nature
10.7
Perpetuation of harmful
practices
i
The DWCPD noted the Traditional practices and customs that
were harmful to women and children but were condoned by some chiefs, including
ukuthwala, ukengena and witch killings that contravened the Constitution.
10.8
Recommendations
i
Jurisdictions and old
apartheid boundaries
a.
The Department of Justice and Constitutional Development proposed
that a revised Bill should avoid the concept of jurisdiction as defined by
boundaries as much as possible.
11.
ADJUDICATION OF
LAND CLAIMS
11.1
Land Access Movement of
i
LAMOSA informed the
Committee that the
ii
LAMOSA further felt that no transformation of the land system
could take place if power was centralised under the presiding officers.
11.2
Makuleke Traditional
Community
i
Mr Makuleke noted that the Bill did not define a community property
association or its relationship to the tribal authority. He feared that the
Bill would leave the matter open to abuse as chiefs, during the apartheid era,
supported forced removals if it enlarged their own power base. He stressed that
the Bill would cement apartheid-conferred powers and would inevitably lead to
further abuse of power.
11.3
Recommendations
i
LAMOSA recommended
that traditional courts should not deal with any land matters until a proper
legal framework was in place.
ii
AFRA proposed that
tribal authorities should not have authority over community property associations.
12.
MARITAL PROPERTY
AND WIDOWS RIGHTS
12.1
The Commission for Gender Equality (CGE) informed the
Committee that it had received many complaints from widows who were not treated
fairly with regard to contested property claims. The CGE expressed concern that
the Bill made no provision to protect marital property.
12.2
The LAMOSA noted that the Bill failed to address the
administration of marital property and matters of succession still remained a
problem.
12.3
The DWCPD requested the Committee to specifically provide for
the protection of widows with regard to property rights.
12.4
AFRA and CASAC, amongst others, expressed concern that
womens interests with regard to property, particularly widows rights, were
not protected.
12.5
Recommendation
i
The DWCPD proposed further consultation with rural women and
womens interest groups to determine the extent of the problem and their
proposals to amend the situation.
13.
LESBIAN AND GAY COMMUNITY
13.1
The Chairperson of the Free Gender Movement (FGM), Ms Funeka
Sidao, submitted that most traditional leaders simply ignored gay and lesbian
people but that there were traditional leaders who actively persecuted gays and
lesbians. This type of behaviour included condoning abuses such a corrective
rape.
In some instances people were forced
into marriages, or had to endure slurs and insults against them and their
parents in the community. The traditional leaders claimed that gays and
lesbians were unnatural and they were enforcing practices in the name of
culture.
13.2
The Sonke Gender Justice Network registered its concerns
regarding the high levels of violence against gay and lesbian people.
13.3
Ms Mary De Haas also expressed her concerned that it would
be
highly unlikely that lesbian and gay
people would get a fair hearing in any
13.4
The CGE submission expressed its concern that it was unlikely
that gays and lesbians would be treated fairly by traditional leaders who were
already biased against them.
13.5
The SAWLA and EC
NHTL did not agree with presenters that gays and lesbians would receive unfair
treatment at the hands of traditional leaders.
13.6
Recommendation
i
The Sonke Gender Justice Network and the FGM urged the
Committee to conduct public hearings, with all marginalised groups present, to address
the discrimination against them and to respect their constitutional rights.
14.
FURTHER MATTERS
RAISED FOR CONSIDERATION
14.1
Whether non tribal land owners would be subject to
tribal authority
i
The AFRA questioned whether white landowners, who owned land
in the traditional areas of authority, would be subject to the traditional
leaders and expressed their concern that it would be a continuation of
apartheid divisions if they were not.
14.2
Customary law tainted by
apartheid
i
The Womens Legal Centre (WLC) submitted that during the
apartheid era customary law had been reduced to writing but had been tainted through
traditional leaders interpreting matters to suit their own agendas. The WLC
reported that the
ii
The CASAC also noted that the traditional leaders were not the
custodians of African customary law. CASAC stated that it did not reject
customary law or the system of traditional leadership and recognised that
traditional leaders played an important role in customary law but stressed they
were not the custodians of customary law. CASAC explained that it was the
communities who believed in the customs, who practiced the customs and upheld
the customs that were the custodians of customary law. CASAC noted that
traditional leaders could not enforce customary law if the people did not
believe in it. CASAC urged the Department to rethink its approach to regulating
customary law.
14.3
Role of NHTL
i
The NHTL proposed the following:
a.
A definition of kingship and kingship councils be formulated,
b.
There must be recognition given to the role that the
provincial and local Houses of Traditional Leaders play,
c.
The Minister should consult with the NHTL when making
regulations on the Traditional Courts Bill, and
d.
Besides Premiers the local Houses of Traditional Leaders
should also be consulted.
14.4
Abuse of power by
traditional leaders
i
The presenters provided examples of abuses that they had
suffered at the hands of certain traditional leaders. Their fear was that the
Bill would entrench corrupt traditional leaders who would perpetuate abuses for
their own gains.
14.5
Recommendations
i
Removing reference to
traditional leaders as presiding officers in the Bill
a.
The Department proposed that the provisions in the Bill
dealing with the designation of traditional leaders as presiding officers be
deleted in their entirety.
ii
Election and recognition of Traditional Councils
a.
The LRG noted that the election procedure of Traditional
Councils was still legally problematic and raised concerns about the statutory
authority vested in Traditional Councils.
b.
The elections should be held in public and be composed of 50%
women.
iii
Accountability of
presiding officers
a.
The NHTL proposed that oaths of office should be taken before
a Judge President.
b.
The Department agreed with this
proposal and suggested the Bill must strengthening accountability through an
oath of office.
c.
Ms M De Haas noted that the accountability of presiding
officers would be further strengthened if decisive action was taken against
abuse.
iv
Independent commission to
determine the fitness of presiding officers to hold office
a.
The NHTL proposed that an independent commission composed of
senior traditional leaders; deal with the incapacity of presiding officers as
expressed in clause 16 of the Bill.
v
Removing presiding officers and chiefs from the political
sphere
a.
Ms Mary De Haas recommended
removing traditional leaders from politics.
Ms De Haas
believed that a conflict of interest existed when traditional leaders were
involved in politics and believed their removal from politics would benefit
communities.
b.
The DWCPD echoed
the sentiment and proposed that chiefs should not be involved in political
parties if they were to be presiding officers.
vi
Opt out system and legal
representation
a.
Various presenters insisted that an opt out system and legal
representation would allow for more protection of an individuals rights.
vii
Code of conduct for
presiding officers
a.
The DWCPD proposed that a Code of Conduct should be developed
for traditional courts and presiding officers similar to the code that guides
the judges.
viii
Vagueness of jurisdiction
and sanctions of Traditional Courts
a.
The SAHRC noted that jurisdiction and sanctions were directly
linked to the power of traditional leaders. The SAHRC noted that the reference
to any appropriate order was too vague and could lead to potential abuse.
b.
The Department indicated that the Bill must provide for
Traditional Councils to adjudicate over disputes that arise within their local
communities. The law must determine the jurisdiction or the type of disputes
that may be adjudicated upon by Transitional Councils sitting as a court.
15.
CALL FOR FURTHER
CONSULTATION AND WITHDRAWING THE BILL
15.1
The Vulamasango
Singene Mnquma District submission called for the Bill to be referred back to councils
and ward councils for further consultation.
15.2
The NUMSA wanted the Bill withdrawn and
another way found to incorporate customary law into a unified system.
15.3
The Sonke Gender Justice Network expressed the need for more
consultation considering that womens rights were not taken into account.
15.4
AFRA noted that the Department of Justice should have done a
thorough consultation process and called for further consultations on the Bill.
15.5
The DWCPD requested the Committee consult with women, especially
those in rural areas. The DWCPD proposed the Bill be redrafted and rewritten in
consultation with rural women and marginalised groups. The DWCPD proposed
extending the existing dispensation to fill the legal vacuum until the Bill was
finalised.
15.6
The CLC noted that the development of customary law had to
involve a process of meaningful and participatory consultation. It raised
concern that during provincial hearings women were intimidated by traditional
leaders and marginalised groups were not consulted.
15.7
Mr Mmuthi Pilane urged the Committee to consult the people
most affected at grass roots level as provincial government was not addressing
their problems. He pointed out that in many instances people in the rural areas
were not aware of the Bill and were not aware of the impact on their lives.
15.8
The Manyeleti Association suggested the Bill be scrapped and proposed
that the Bill be rewritten after consultation with communities at grass roots
level.
15.9
The Womens Legal Centre noted the Bill fell short of certain
standards and had to be withdrawn and redrafted after consultation with women.
15.10
Hosi Sibisi Mahatlani recommended withdrawing the Bill and
starting afresh.
15.11
The Makuleke Community called for the withdrawal of the Bill
and Parliament to engage the private sector and non-governmental organisations
and community based organisations.
15.12
The CLC believed the Bill could not be panel beaten into
shape as it was fundamentally flawed and called for its withdrawal.
15.13
The Babanango Community was opposed to the Bill and requested
further consultation with rural communities.
15.14
The SAHRC stated it was essential that rural communities be
consulted, that the abuse reported is researched, and that the operation of the
courts is investigated to ensure a Bill that complied with the Constitution.
15.15
CASAC requested the Bill not be withdrawn and amended but
that it be completely scrapped and the process started afresh.
15.16
The LSSA did not agree that the Bill should be scrapped as a
legal vacuum would exist if customary law were not recognised. The LSSA agreed
with the Department of Justice proposal to confer judicial power on Traditional
Councils with right of appeal and review applied in Magistrates courts.
15.17
The Bafokeng submission also called for the scrapping of the
Bill, pointing to unconstitutionality aspects contained in the Bill.
15.18
The CGE noted that the Bill should be abandoned if amendments
could not bring it in line with the Constitution.
16.
RESPONSE TO THE CALL TO
WITHDRAW THE BILL
16.1
The Department had attempted to address the publics concerns
regarding the inadequate consultation process in their presentation and had
noted that the consultation process had excluded the majority of stakeholders
who would be affected by the Bill. The Department noted the publics call for
the Bill to be withdrawn on this basis and, after proper consultation and
redrafting, re-table the Bill in Parliament. The Department, however, proposed
an alternative remedy to referring the Bill back to the Departments drawing
board and alluded to Parliaments Constitutional position and legislative
powers as the preferred vehicle to make law out of a Department initiated Bill.
16.2
The SAWLA EC NHTL opposed the scrapping or withdrawal of the
Bill and urged the committee to take it forward with the necessary amendments
to improve it.
Documents
No related documents