ATC170516: Report of the Portfolio Committee on Justice and Correctional Services on Budget Vote 22: Office of the Chief Justice and Judicial Administration, dated 16 May 2017

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 16 May 2017

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 OCJ’s mandate is primarily 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.            The Office of the Chief Justice presented its Annual Performance Plan 2017/18, as well as its 2017 Medium Term Expenditure Framework (MTEF) budget on 3 May 2017. The presentation can be obtained from the Committee Secretariat.

2.             Overview of the Vote for the 2017 MTEF

2.1.            The OCJ is allocated an annual budget of R1.98 billion for 2017/18. The budget is expected to increase to R2.09 billion in 2018/19 and R2.24 billion in 2019/10.

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

Programme	Adjusted Appropriation 2016/17	MTEF
		2017/18	2018/19	2019/20
	R’000	R’000	R’000	R’000
Administration	144 999	198 991	213 717	240 468
Superior Court Services	679 052	737 470	771 333	813 246
Judicial Education and Support	49 939	82 104	85 923	90 198
Subtotal	873 990	1 018 565	1 070 973	1 143 912
Direct Charge: ·         Judges’ Salaries ·         Transfers & subsidies	950 057 868 153   81 903	966 060 908 241   57 819	1 022 091 960 918   61 173	1 098 546 1 033 948   64 598
Total	1 824 047	1 984 625	2 093 064	2 242 458

 

2.2.            Overall, the allocation has increased by a nominal 8.8% from 2016/17, while in real terms the increase is 2.3%.

2.3.            The operationalization of the Superior Courts Act is to be prioritised over the medium term. The OCJ, therefore, receives an additional R134 million over the MTEF, as follows, for this purpose: R58 million in 2017/18, R34 million in 2018/19 and R42 million in 2019/20. 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.

2.4.            The OCJ also receives R18.8 million in 2017/18 and R2 million in 2018/19 to facilitate the appointment and training of judicial officers.

2.5.            Overall, the Superior Court Services programme receives the largest share of the allocation to programmes (at 72%).

2.6.            The allocation to programmes is as follows:

• The allocation for Administration increases from R145 million in 2016/17 to R199 million in 2017/18. In 2017/18, the spending focus for this programme will be on capacitating the OCJ by reducing the vacancy rate and by implementing the ICT Master Systems Plan to ensure effective support to the Judiciary and the courts.
• The allocation to Superior Court Services increases from R679 million in 2016/17 to R737 million in 2017/18. The spending focus over the medium term remains that of improving the court system through effective and efficient case-flow management.
• The allocation for Judicial Education and Support Services increases from R50 million in 2017/17 to R82 million in 2017/18. However, R13.1 million of the increase is as a result of the shift of the Judicial Services Commission subprogramme to this programme. The spending focus is on capacitating the South African Judicial Education Institute in support of the NDP and ensuring that the Institute delivers on its mandate. Notably, a total of 246 judicial training and educational courses are planned for 2017/18.

2.7.            The number of posts at the OCJ is expected to decrease over the medium term from 2 645 in 2016/17 to 2 559 in 2019/20 as a result of cabinet-approved reductions for spending on compensation of employees.

 

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

3.1.            The Secretary-General presented the OCJ’s 2017/18 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 inefficiencies.
• Ensuring access to justice.
• Ensuring judicial accountability.
• Providing training to the judiciary through SAJEI.

3.3.            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 linked to Chapter 14 of the NDP: Strengthening judicial governance and the rule of law.

3.4.            The OCJ has the following as its goals: the efficient and effective administration of the OCJ; improved administrative and technical support to the OCJ; and administrative support to the Superior Courts. These are broken down into the following strategic objectives:

• Capacitate the Office of the Chief Justice.
• Ensure good governance in the administration of the Department.
• Ensure the effective and efficient administration if the Superior Courts and Judicial Service Commission.
• Enhance the judicial skills of serving and aspiring judicial offices to perform optimally.

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
Capacitate the Office of the Chief Justice	Inadequate budget.	·         Costing of structure and reprioritizing of posts. ·         Request additional funding.
Ensure good governance in the administration of the department	Inadequate measures to enforce governance.	·         Establish a unit to facilitate governance within the department. ·         Monitor the implementation of compliance measures.
Judicial Support and Administration
Ensure the effective and efficient administration of the Superior Courts and the Judicial Service Commission	Inadequate support provided to the Superior Courts.	·         Conduct a needs analysis for the operationalization of the Superior Courts Act (budget and personnel). ·         Monitor the facilities and infrastructure. ·         Engage with the Departments of Justice and Public Works on matters relating to joint contacts.
	Inadequate IT infrastructure and business operating systems for modernization of judicial systems	·         Request funding from IJS and National Treasury for modernization of the court systems and implementation of the Master Systems Plan.
	Inconsistent application of the court administration standards/guidelines/rules	·         Compile a training plan for officials. ·         Conduct training. ·         Monitor implantation of court administration standards/guidelines/rules.
Judicial Education and Support
Enhance skills and knowledge of serving and aspirant Judicial Officers to perform optimally	Inadequate resources to facilitate training of Judicial Officers.	·         Facilitate “train the trainer” programmes to create a pool of guest facilitators. ·         Convert and implement the manual training module to e-learning. ·         Request additional funding from National Treasury to enhance capacity for judicial training.

3.6.            In 2017/18, the OCJ has revised its indicators to better reflect performance that is in its control and mandate.

 

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, performance reporting and risk management functions necessary to ensure effective functioning of the department. 

·         The Corporate Services subprogramme provides integrated Human Resources Management (HRM), Information and Communication Technology (ICT) and security management support services to the department. 

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

·         The Internal Audit 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. Although there are no major changes to the programme structure, Risk Management, which was previously paired with Internal Audit, now falls under the Management subprogramme.
2. Performance indicators and targets for 2017/18 include the following:

Table 4: Administration: Performance indicators and annual targets 2016/17 – 2019/20

Performance Indicator	Targets
	Estimated performance 2016/17	2017/18	2018/19	2019/20
Percentage of funded vacant posts on PERSAL per year	-	10% or lower	10% or lower	10% or lower
Audit outcomes on financial statements	Unqualified audit opinion	Unqualified audit opinion	Unqualified audit opinion (No more than 3 matters of emphasis)	Unqualified audit opinion (Clean audit)
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	ICT Master Systems Plan implementation initiated (critical systems)	ICT Master Plan implemented (information security network developed)	ICT Master Plan implemented (information security network implemented)	ICT Master Plan implemented (information security network implemented)
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	Implement plan at all Superior Courts	Review plan	Improve plan
Number of strategic and operational risk registers developed and updated	8	8	8	8
Fraud risk assessments conducted within OCJ (NEW)	-	Fraud risk assessments conducted in 24 Superior Courts	Fraud Risk Prevention Strategy developed	Fraud Risk Prevention Strategy implemented

 

4.2.            Programme 2: Superior Court Services

 

1. This programme provides judicial support and court administration services to the Superior Courts. The programme consists of the following sub-programmes: 
   • The Administration of Superior Courts subprogramme provides administrative and technical support to the Superior Courts, monitors the overall performance of the Superior Courts, and enhances judicial stakeholder relations.  
   • The Constitutional Court subprogramme funds the activities and operations of the Constitutional Court.
   • The Supreme Court of Appeal subprogramme funds the activities and operations of the Supreme Court of Appeal.
   • The High Courts’ subprogramme funds the activities and operations of the various high court divisions.
   • The Specialized Courts subprogramme funds the activities and operations of the labour, land, electoral and competition courts.
2. This programme has been renamed “Superior Court Services” to reflect the shift of the judicial support function, which includes the Judicial Services Commission, to Programme 3: Judicial Education and Support.
3. All performance indicators and targets for the programme that address court performance have been removed, leaving only those that relate to quasi-judicial performance. The performance indicators and targets for 2017/18 are, therefore, as follows:

 

Table 5: Judicial Support and Court Administration - Performance indicators and annual targets 2016/17 – 2019/20

Performance Indicator	Targets
	2016/17 (Estimated performance)	2017/18	2018/19	2019/20
Percentage achievement of quasi-judicial targets	65%	80%	90%	100%
No. of Superior Courts performance monitoring reports produced	5	5	5	5
Percentage of default judgments finalised by Registrars	65%	80%	90%	100%
Percentage of taxation of legal costs finalised	65%	80%	90%	100%
Number of training workshops on case management conducted for Registrars, clerks, etc.	4	4	4	4
Number of warrants of release delivered within one day of release granted	100	98%	98%	98%

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 name has been amended from “Judicial Education and Research” to “Judicial Education and Support” to reflect the shift of the Judicial Service Commission subprogramme from Superior Court Services to this programme.

4.3.3.    The programme has the following sub-programmes: 

·         The South African Judicial Education Institute subprogramme funds the activities of the SAJEI to provide training for Judicial Officers.

·         The Judicial Policy, Research and Support subprogramme funds the provision of advisory opinions on policy development and regulatory services to the Judiciary and the Department.

·         The Judicial Service Commission subprogramme provides secretariat and administrative support services to the Judicial Service Commission to effectively perform its constitutional and legislative mandates.

1. Performance indicators and targets for 2017/18 are as follows:

Table 6: Judicial Education and Support - Performance indicators and annual targets 2016/17 – 2019/20

Performance Indicator	Targets
	2016/17 (Estimated performance)	2017/18	2018/19	2019/20
No. of judicial education courses conducted	70	77	82	87
Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E)framework for judicial education implemented	M&E framework for judicial education approved	M&E framework for judicial education and training implemented	M&E framework for judicial education and training implemented	M&E framework for judicial education and training reviewed
Percentage of legal advisory opinions on policy development and research services provided within 15 days of receipt	80%	85%	90%	100%
No. of reports on judicial appointments and judicial complaints produced	3	3	3	3

5.     Committee’s observations

5.1.            While the Committee is acutely aware of the need for fiscal restraint, it is extremely concerned about the impact of the present funding constraints on the OCJ’s ability to deliver on its mandate. The OCJ has a relatively small budget (it receives approximately 0.5% of the allocation to the public order and defence function), in which it must achieve a great deal. During the 2016/17 budgetary process, National Treasury implemented a ceiling on the budgets of all state entities relating to Compensation of Employees. The Committee is informed that when the OCJ deliberated with National Treasury, it was pointed out that the application of a ceiling on the OCJ’s budget would result in the non-implementation of the Superior Courts Act, 2013. The OCJ indicated further that full use of the ceiling for 2017/18 will erode the ceilings for the 2018/19 and 2019/20 financial years. The effect of the current year’s ceiling of R615 million, if fully utilised, is that there will be a projected budget shortfall of R16.2 million in 2018/19 and R20.9 million in 2019/20. This would constitute unauthorised expenditure and will result in a qualified audit opinion, which is an option that cannot be supported. At present, the OCJ is unable to fill any new posts in order to increase its much needed capacity to support the courts. The most critical area of pressure is for capacity to the Judges President to support judicial functions. This has also impacted on the OCJ’s ability to appoint staff for the new Mpumalanga High Court.

5.2.            Similarly, there appears to be no funds in the current budget for the operationalization of the new Mpumalanga High Court, which is due to be completed later this year. The Committee has raised its concern previously regarding the need to make provision for the operationalization of newly built courts. It is informed that, in this instance, the OCJ’s budget proposals for the 2017 MTEF included a request to National Treasury to allocate the amounts of R18.1 million for 2017/18, R19.2 million for 2018/19 and R20.7 million for 2019/20 for this purpose. The Committee has learnt that an amount R18.1 million was approved for the Mpumalanga High Court for 2017/18 but, in the same allocation letter, however, National Treasury effected budget cuts on the operational budget to the amount of R29.9 million. The additional budget cuts have, in essence, resulted in the non-funding of the Mpumalanga High Court as the net effect is a reduction of the OCJ’s baseline by R11.8 million. The Committee regards the establishment of the Mpumalanga High Court as a national priority and takes a dim view of anything that may delay the establishment of this court, which will be a first for Mpumalanga and is vital for transformation and the promotion of access to justice for those who live in that province. More generally, the Committee is deeply concerned that courts continue to be built without there being enough funds to operationalize them.

5.3.            Although the Committee understands why key performance indicators relating to court performance have been removed from the OCJ’s plans (court performance is a judicial function), it regrets that this is so. The information relating to court performance is vital to the Committee’s oversight function: without it the Committee’s ability to gauge how well our courts are performing is undermined. The Committee, therefore, requests that the OCJ continue to report on court performance for information purposes. In the meantime, the Committee welcomes that the OCJ intends compiling monitoring reports of the norms and standards on the performance of the Superior Courts.

5.4.            The Committee also regrets the recent incident at the OCJ’s new headquarters in which computers containing sensitive personal information were stolen. It notes the explanation provided to it regarding the measures that are being taken to increase security. The matter of security, however, remains a concern to the Committee.

5.5.            The Committee notes the Judiciary’s view that English should remain the language of record to avoid unnecessary delays on appeal but parties should be able to speak their own language(s) in court. The Committee, however, remains firmly of the view that more needs to be done to support multi-lingualism in courts. It has suggested that the legal professionals be required to speak an indigenous African language to practice and that this be part of the legal curriculum at our tertiary institutions. Further, the Committee agrees that interpretation as a vocation should be properly elevated and will engage further with the Ministry on how this suggestion can be taken forward.

5.6.            The Committee welcomes that, of its own accord, the Judiciary has embarked on an aggressive exercise to ensure cost containment. Although it is not possible to force all of our judges to agree to a zero percent salary raise, the Committee is informed that the majority have embraced the call. The Committee is also pleased to learn that other cost containment measures have also been implemented and there have been savings.

5.7.            The Committee notes that the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development has agreed to fund the training of newly appointed magistrates (The intention is to appoint approximately 200 magistrates later this year).

 

6.     Recommendations

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.

6.2.            The Committee further recommends that additional funds are made available to the OCJ for the operationalisation of the Mpumalanga High Court, as well as for the implementation of the Superior Courts Act, 2013, in particular, for additional capacity to the Judges President for judicial functions.

 

Report to be considered