ATC180515: Report of the Portfolio Committee on Justice and Correctional Services on Budget Vote 22: Office of the Chief Justice and Judicial Administration, dated 15 May 2018

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 15 May 2018
 

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. The Office of the Chief Justice and Judicial Administration (OCJ) was established 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. The transfer of administrative functions and identified staff attached to the Superior Courts from the Justice Department of Justice and Constitutional Development to the OCJ commenced on 1 October 2014, while the OCJ received its own Budget Vote from 1 April 2015.

 

1. The Minister of Justice and Correctional Services is the OCJ’s Executive Authority (EA), while the Secretary General (SG) is its administrative head. As the Minister’s proxy, the Secretary-General engages and consults with the Chief Justice and other Heads of Courts in respect of the administrative functioning of the Superior courts, while the Chief Justice controls the judicial functions of the Superior and Lower courts. The Department continues to support the administration of the Lower/Magistrate’s courts.

 

1. The Office of the Chief Justice presented its Annual Performance Plan 2018/19, as well as its 2018 Medium Term Expenditure Framework (MTEF) budget on 25 April 2018. The presentation can be obtained from the Committee Secretariat.

 

1. Overview of the Vote for the 2018 MTEF

 

1. The OCJ is allocated an annual budget of R2.1 billion for 2018/19, compared with R2.0 billion in 2017/18 (adjusted appropriation). The budget is expected to increase to R2.3 billion in 2019/20 and R2.5 billion in 2020/21.

 

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

Programme	Adjusted Appropriation 2017/18	MTEF
		2018/19	2019/20	2020/21
	R ’million	R ’million	R ’million	R ’million
Administration	183.7	201.9	213.9	227.4
Superior Court Services	758.7	838.9	900.1	965.3
Judicial Education and Support	76.9	79.0	83.6	89.1
Subtotal	1 019.3	1 119.7	1 197.7	1 281.9
Direct Charge: Judges’ Salaries	966.1	1 022.1	1 098.5	1 180.9
Total	1 985 4	2 141.8	2 296.2	2 462.8

 

 

1. Additional funds

 

1. To ensure that the Mpumalanga High Court is able to operate, an additional R115.3 million is reprioritised from the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development over the medium term for compensation of employees (R74.9 million), goods and services (R22.8 million), transfers to households (R195 000), and machinery and equipment (R17.4 million). 

 

1. The ICT Master Systems Plan is funded from the Integrated Justice System (IJS) programme, which falls under Programme 5: Auxiliary and Associated Services of Vote 21: Justice and Constitutional Development; and from funds reprioritised from the OCJ’s Administration programme. The project is allocated R11.9 million in 2018/19, increasing to R13.3 million in 2020/21.

 

 

1. Expenditure trends 2018 MTEF

 

1. Administration: The spending focus during 2018/19 is on capacitating the OCJ by reducing the vacancy rate and implementing the ICT Master Systems Plan to ensure effective support to the Judiciary and the courts. 

 

1. Superior Court Services: The spending focus over the medium term is on improving the court system through effective and efficient case-flow management. 
2. Judicial Education and Support. The spending focus for this programme is on capacitating SAJEI and ensuring that the institute delivers on its mandate. A total of 246 judicial training and educational courses are planned for this financial year. 

 

1. 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 because of cabinet-approved reductions for spending on compensation of employees. At present, the number of posts is at 2 579.

 

1. Unfunded mandates

 

1. The OCJ has unfunded mandates of R144.8 million in 2018/19; R158.1 million in 2019/20; and R171.3 million in 2020/21. These relate to

• Implementation of the Superior Courts Act (R40 million in 2018/19; R42.8 million in 2019/20; and R45.8 million in 2020/21).
• Consequential costs for judicial appointments (R11.1 million in 2018/19; R12.3 million in 2019/20; and R13.9 million in 2020/21).
• Judicial projects (R32 million in 2018/19; R33.5 million in 2019/20; and R35 million in 2020/21);
• ICT for court modernisation projects (R45 million in 2018/19; R50 million in 2019/20; and R56 million in 2020/21); and funding of the macro structure (R16.8 million in 2018/19; R19.5 million in 2019/20; and R20.7 million in 2020/21).

 

 

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

 

1. The Secretary-General presented the OCJ’s 2018/19 Annual Performance Plan.

 

1. 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.

 

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

• Administration is linked to Chapter 13 of the NDP, ‘Ensure good governance in the administration of the Department’; and to Outcome 12, ‘An efficient and effective development-orientated public service’.
• The programmes Superior Court Services and Judicial Education and Support are linked to Chapter 14 of the NDP: Strengthening judicial governance and the rule of law. This is linked to Outcome 2, ‘All people in South Africa are and feel safe’.

 

1. The OCJ has the following 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 of the Superior Courts and Judicial Service Commission.
• Enhance the judicial skills of serving and aspiring judicial offices to perform optimally.

 

1. The OCJ has identified the following key strategic risks and mitigation strategies for 2018/19:

 

Table 2: Strategic risks and interventions in mitigation

Strategic Objective	Risk	Mitigation/ Interventions
Administration
Capacitate the Office of the Chief Justice	Inadequate budget.	Request additional funding to fund the consequential costs related to the appointment of judicial officers. Develop and implement a comprehensive short and long-term plan on acquisition of office space, computers, telephones, printers. Request an adjustment of compensation of employees ceilings from National Treasury.
Ensure good governance in the administration of the department	Possible exposure to fraud and corruption.	Establish a unit to facilitate governance within the department. Continuous improvement of policies and standard operating procedures to address fraud exposure. Reinforce/strengthen the reporting mechanism of fraudulent court orders. Management to strengthen and monitor implementation of internal controls. Monitor implementation of fraud prevention strategy.
Superior Court Services
Ensure the effective and efficient administration of the Superior Courts	Inadequate quasi-judicial services rendered	Prioritise the appointment of Registrars. Continuous training of Registrars. Proper control measures to be implemented by the courts to ensure compliance with prescribed timeframes. Monitor the implementation of SOPs.
	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. Appointment and training of ICT personnel. Fast track implementation of e-filing solution for the Superior Courts. Conduct a scientific needs analysis. Monitor implementation of 7-point plan (Combined assurance mechanism aimed at improving court performance information through data verification – key role players are Internal Audit, Monitoring and Evaluation and Court Administration).
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. Pilot implementation of the e-learning. Request additional funding from National Treasury to enhance capacity for judicial training.

 

 

1. Office of the Chief Justice: Programmes

 

1. Programme 1: Administration

 

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. Performance indicators and targets for 2018/19 include the following:

 

Table 3: Administration: Performance indicators and annual targets 2018/19 - 2020/21

Performance Indicator	2018/19	2019/20	2020/21
Strategic objective 1:  Capacitate the Office of the Chief Justice
Percentage of funded vacant posts on PERSAL per year	10%	10%	10%
Strategic objective 2:  Ensure good governance in the administration of the department
Audit outcomes on financial statements	Unqualified audit opinion (No more than 5 matters of emphasis)	Unqualified audit opinion (Clean audit)	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
Combined assurance plan developed and implemented	Implement plan at all Superior Courts	Implement plan	Implement plan
Number of strategic and operational risk registers developed and updated	8	8	8
Fraud Prevention Strategy implemented	Fraud Risk Prevention Strategy developed, approved and implemented	Fraud Risk Prevention Strategy implemented	Fraud Risk Prevention Strategy reviewed
ICT Master Plan developed and implemented	Prioritised projects (e-filing) piloted at 2 High Courts	Prioritised projects (e-filing) rolled out	Prioritised projects (e-filing) rolled out
Number of compliant financial performance reports submitted	12	12	12
Number of asset registers produced	2	2	2

 

1. 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.

 

1. 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 2018/19 are, therefore, as follows:

 

Table 4: Superior Court Services - Performance indicators and annual targets 2018/19-2020/21

Performance Indicator	2018/19	2019/20	2020/21
Strategic Objective 3: Ensure the effective and efficient administration of the Superior Courts
Percentage achievement of quasi-judicial targets	90%	90%	100%
No. of monitoring reports on Court Order integrity produced	4	4	4
Percentage of default judgments finalised by Registrars	90%	100%	100%
Percentage of taxation of legal costs finalised	90%	100%	100%
Number of training workshops on case management conducted for Registrars, clerks, etc.	2	2	2
Percentage of warrants of release delivered within one day of release granted	98%	98%	98%

 

 

1. Programme 3: Judicial Education and Support

 

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

 

1. 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 perform its constitutional and legislative mandates effectively.

 

1. Performance indicators and targets for 2018/19 are as follows:

 

Table 5: Judicial Education and Support - Performance indicators and annual targets 2018/19 – 2020/21

Performance Indicator	2018/19	2019/20	2019/20
Strategic Objective 4: Enhance judicial skills of serving and aspiring judicial officers to perform optimally
No. of judicial education courses conducted	78	80	82
No. of research monographs for Judicial Education produced per year	2	2	2
Percentage of legal advisory opinions on policy development and research services provided within 15 days of receipt	100%	100%	100%
No. of reports on judicial appointments and judicial complaints produced	3	3	3

 

 

1. Committee’s observations

 

1. General

The Committee raised a number of matters that the OCJ was unable to respond to on behalf of the Judiciary and the Judicial Services Commission. Although these are captured in this report, the Committee will request a meeting with the Chief Justice and Heads of Court to discuss court performance and other identified issues of mutual interest. The Committee notes that the OCJ has been helpful in facilitating such meetings in the past and once more requests its assistance.

 

1. Court performance and JSC

The Committee is again frustrated that it is unable to properly gauge the effectiveness of court performance (including the performance of the Land Claims Court), as the OCJ is unable to provide any statistics or further details regarding court performance. The Committee fully understands the reasons for this but finds itself in a difficult situation in this regard, as it is expected to make recommendations regarding the allocation to the Vote without access to important information regarding how well are courts are functioning.

 

The Committee agrees that the solution lies in the finalisation of a court administration model, which will provide for an appropriate accountability model for judicial functions. The Committee, therefore, does not understand the protracted delays in addressing the matter and notes, further, that the Judiciary had submitted its proposals to the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development, a number of years ago. The Committee requests that the finalisation of the Model be prioritised.

 

The Committee will also raise the specific matter of a mechanism to allow it access to statistical data regarding court performance when it next meets with the Chief Justice and Heads of Courts.

 

1. The Committee queried if the Judicial Services Commission had tabled (in Parliament) a report of its activities (as required by the enabling legislation). It notes that the OCJ indicated that it was unable to respond on the JSC’s behalf but would bring the matter to the attention of the Chief Justice. The Committee requests that the JSC submit a report on its activities as a matter of urgency, and will also raise this issue when it next meets with the Chief Justice and Heads of Courts.  

 

1. Capacitation of the Land Claims Court

 

The Committee expressed its dissatisfaction with the way responsibility for remedying the challenges of deciding land claims is passed between government departments. The Committee is of the view that there has been no significant progress in this regard (there are far too many land claims that remain outstanding).

 

With regard to the capacitation of the Land Claims Court, it is appreciative that there are now Judges appointed to that Court but is not satisfied that the appointments are on an acting basis. The Committee does not understand why permanent appointments have not been made to date, and requests an explanation in this regard. The Committee requests further that the Ministry engage with the Ministry: Rural Development and Land Reform on the need to expedite a review of the legislation relating to land restitution; and, in particular, the permanent tenure of the Judges appointed to the Land Claims Court and its proper capacitation.

 

The Committee also raised the issues of the use of language and access to legal representation as possible barriers to access. The Committee queried whether the OCJ is doing its part to ensure that those using these courts have access to legal representation, as claimants cannot afford to pay lawyers.

 

The Committee will also raise it concerns about the capacitation and functioning of the Land Claims Court when it next meets with the Chief Justice and Heads of Courts.

 

1. Progress towards a single judiciary

The Committee supports a single judiciary as envisaged by section 166 of the Constitution but is concerned about the slow progress in realising this. The Committee is not satisfied with the OCJ’s response that the legislation relating to Lower Courts is within the control of the Justice Department, as the OCJ (and the Judiciary) is a key stakeholder. The Committee is of the view that there is passing of responsibility between stakeholder departments on matters where some degree of co-operation and collaboration can be reasonably be expected. It is aware the government struggles to overcome its tendency to act in isolation. However, in this instance, as this is not a new issue that is being raised, the Committee expected that the OCJ would be able to respond on progress at the meeting, even if only from its perspective.

 

The Committee is of the view that the introduction of the necessary legislation be expedited and requests that the Ministry facilitate this.

 

1. Traditional Courts. The Committee is concerned that the programme to train traditional leaders and clerks to support the functioning of the traditional courts has stalled. The Committee has further concerns about the expertise of those who are offering the training. The Committee, therefore, will schedule a meeting with both SAJEI and Justice College as soon as its programme permits.

 

1. Training

The Committee requests that consideration be given to ensuring that the training provided to Judicial Officers ensures that they are knowledgeable of indigenous African law. The OCJ noted the Committee’s concern in this regard.  The Committee will also address the broader issue of the training of all judicial officers on indigenous African law when it meets with the SAJEI.

 

The Committee is of the view that the study of an indigenous African language and law should be compulsory for the practice of law in South Africa. It is also interested in hearing from the Judiciary of its views on the compulsory study of indigenous African law as a prerequisite to practice law in South Africa.

 

The Committee will raise this matter when it next meets with the Chief Justice and Heads of Court.

 

1. Outreach. The Committee is pleased that the OCJ intends to perform outreach work to inform communities of its activities but is informed that a lack of funds has meant that this can only form part of the OCJ’s plans for the future. The Committee notes the response but, as outreach speaks to the issue of accessibility, it requests that the OCJ look to see how it can take up some outreach work now, even if only in a limited fashion.

 

1. Security. The Committee is informed that there is little progress in finding and holding those responsible for the break in at the OCJ’s offices. Although the OCJ has increased the security within the available resources, the Committee remains concerned.

 

 

1. Recommendations

 

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.

 

1. The Committee will request a meeting with the Chief Justice and Heads of Court to discuss matters in relation to court performance and other matters of mutual interest; and asks that the OCJ assist to arrange the meeting.

 

1. The Committee recommends further that:

 

1. The Ministry engage with the Ministry: Rural Development and Land Reform on the need to expedite a review of the legislation relating to land restitution; and, in particular, the permanent tenure of the Judges appointed to the Land Claims Court and its proper capacitation be addressed as a matter of urgency.

 

1. The Minister introduce the legislation to promote a single judiciary in line with section 166 of the Constitution as a matter of urgency.

 

1. A Court Administration Model is finalised as soon as possible.

 

1. The Judicial Services Commission table a report on its activities as required by the enabling legislation as a matter of urgency.

 

1. A meeting with both SAJEI and Justice College is scheduled as soon as the programme permits to discuss the training of traditional leaders and clerks in support of the traditional courts.

 

1. The study of indigenous in African law and language is included as a compulsory requirement for the practice of law in South Africa.

 

1. The OCJ look into how it can embark on an outreach programme within the limited resources available.

 

 

Report to be considered