Department of Justice and Constitutional Development 2022/23 Annual Performance Plan; with Deputy Minister

Meeting report

Opening Remarks
The Chairperson made brief opening remarks and welcomed the Deputy Minister and Deputy General (DG).

Introductory Remarks by the Deputy Minister
Deputy Minister John Jeffery made brief introductory remarks to the Annual Performance Plan (APP) and presentation. He communicated the apology of the Minister.

Presentation by the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development on its Annual Performance Plan (APP) and Budget
Adv Doctor Mashabane, Director General (DG), Department of Justice and Constitutional Development, and other representatives of the Department, including the Chief Financial Officer (CFO), Ms Rofhiwa Irene Singo, presented the APP and Budget to the Committee.

To note: the Department presented from an Auditorium. Where an official is not specifically named in this report, they will be referred to as a representative of the Department.

The following Bills, the Department plans to introduce in Parliament during the MTSF period, namely the Administration of Estates Bill, Regulation of Trusts Bill, Regulation of Interception and Communications Amendment Bill and Decriminalisation of Sex Work Bill.

The key strategic focus area over the strategic plan cycle included modernising and increasing access to justice services, commitment to build and deepen Constitutionalism, respect for Human Rights and Rule of law and review of justice-related colonial and apartheid era legislation with the aim of aligning this legislation with the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 (Constitution). It further included the implementation of the National Action Plan to combat Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance in order to advance constitutionalism, human rights and the rule of law and addressing the scourge of Gender-Based Violence and Femicide (GBVF). The transformation of state legal services to improve effectiveness and efficiency through the implementation of the State Attorney Amendment Act, 2014 (Act No. 13 of 2014) also formed one of the strategic focus areas over the strategic plan cycle.

Modernising services to increase access to justice was still a key priority during this strategic plan cycle for the improvement of the quality and speed-up the provision of services. During 2021/22 financial year, the Department developed and piloted Phase 1 of the solutions that would provide the following online services, namely, Maintenance, Trust, Expungement, Deceased estate, and NRSO. Phase 1 of the listed online services will enable clients to do online registration and application submission. During the same period, Protection Order online services was developed and tested, however, the piloting did not take place as planned due to rules and regulations that must be amended before piloting and implementation can take place. In 2022/23 financial year, the Department will progress to Phase 2 of the above-mentioned services to include transacting capabilities. Additionally, the Department will commence with Phase 1 of the State Attorneys online services. The Department will also be rolling-out the Courts Audio-Visual Solution (CAVS) in 85 courtrooms this financial year.

In improving organisational capacity, good governance and audit outcomes in the 2022/23 financial year, the focus would be on reducing irregular expenditure by 65 %, fruitless and wasteful expenditure by 85 %, processing 98 % of all undisputed and valid invoices within 30 days from date of receipt. To address the scourge of fraud and corruption which continued to pose risks within the Public Service, undermine the rule of law and impedes government’s efforts to achieve its socio-economic development and service-delivery objectives, the Department investigated and finalised 75 % of all incidents of fraud and corruption in 2021/22 financial year. For 2022/23 financial year the plan is to investigate and finalise 85 % of the reported corruption cases. During the same period, the Department will empower women, youth and people with disabilities by prioritising when filling vacant posts. The plan included indicators that would focus on maintaining 2 % appointment of people with disabilities and improving the appointment of women at SMS level from 48.7 % to 50 % and youth from 20 % to 22 %.

The Department would continue to implement interventions that would address the scourge of Gender-Based Violence and Femicide (GBVF) and against women and children.
For 2022/23 financial year, the Department plans to develop Phase 5 of Femicide Watch, establish 80 sexual offences courts at designated courts, finalise 90 % of child justice preliminary inquiries and issue issuing 55 % of NRSO Clearance Certificates of applications received in the financial year and finalise 3000 NRSO applications on backlog.
With regards to protection of children, the APP included indicators on the finalisation of litigation matters, non-litigation matters, maintenance matters and maintenance investigations. For 2022/23 the Department will ensure that 80 % of litigation and non-litigation family advocate matters are finalised, 75 % of maintenance matters are finalised within 90 days from the date of proper service of process and that 30 % maintenance investigations are finalised within 90 days of receipt of instruction by the Maintenance Officer or Referral by the Clerk of the Maintenance Court.

The fight against fraud and corruption will continue to be on the departmental radar over the medium-term period. The Department has established 6 specialised commercial crime courts in the last financial year. For the new financial year, the Department target is to capacitate 2 of the specialised commercial crime courts established in 2021/22 financial year. For the new financial year, the Department plans to have 85 % of liquidation and distribution accounts in bankruptcy matters examined within 15 days and 85 % of letters of appointment in curatorship estates issued within 15 days. In addition, the Department will ensure that 80 % of beneficiaries of Guardian Funds receive their payments within 40 days from receipt of all required documents and 80 % certificates of appointment issued in all bankruptcy matters within 10 days from receipt of all required documents.

The Department’s budget percentage year on year fluctuation was as a result of the following, the 2 % budget growth in the 2022/23 financial year was due to the additional funding for the NPA as well as the non-pensionable salary adjustment provision.
The negative decline of 1% in the 2023/24 financial year was due to the non-allocation of salary adjustment as well as the impact of historical budget cuts. The effect of these cuts resulted in the Department’s budget to have a minimal growth percentage. The 4 % budget growth in the 2024/25 financial year was mainly due to the non-reduction of Department’s budget baseline in the 2021 budget process.

Please see presentation for further information.

Discussion
The Chairperson noted that there were reduced and removed targets. He asked if the Deputy Minister was part of the proposal to remove targets. Some of the targets were set by Cabinet or the National Executive, of which the Deputy Minister was part. Did the Deputy Minister agree and approve that the targets be reduced or be removed? That was what the Minister and Deputy Minister should have oversight of to ensure policy directives from the Executive were implemented.

Deputy Minister Jeffery replied that one needed to go through each target. Some of the percentage reductions in service delivery had not been supported by him, particularly the issue of the payment of invoices.

The Chairperson stated that he would take the Deputy Minister through the reduced targets. He made mention of the 30-day period which had been reduced, as well as the percentage change relating to the National Register of Sex Offenders (NRSO) clearance certificate being issued within 10 working days from date of receipt of the application. The target was supposed to be 75 % for 2022/23, the target had been reduced to 55 %. 

Deputy Minister Jeffery stated that he was not in favour of those reductions. He asked if the Chairperson wanted to run through each target, as he might have been in favour of some of the changes. 

The Chairperson stated that the problem with the reduction in those targets and the removal thereof, went to the core of this meeting’s purpose. He noted the number of courts compliant with the Strategy on universal access for persons with disabilities, the target for 2021/22 had reduced from 100 to 27 courts in 2022/23. There was no indication or explanation of why the targets had been reduced. The presentation came across as if these were new targets. There was a significant reduction. It made him question why he was there.

Deputy Minister Jeffery stated that in the Memorandum, certain comments were made. He suggested the DG would be more qualified to respond. The reason related to a lack of resources, the effects of COVID-19 and ransomware. He suggested that the DG and his team explain the specific reasons for the reductions.

The Chairperson stated that his understanding was that the plan was a promise that the Department would deliver on its mandate. On the basis of the plan presented, resources could be advocated for and released by Parliament. If that was the case, there were issues that he wanted to bring to the attention of the DG. These issues came from the Budgetary Review and Recommendations Report (BRRR) that were covered in the plan. On the audit action plans irregular expenditure and consequence management, the Committee requested the DG to provide details of the commitment made. The commitments made the last time, as well as the progress report requested by 31 January 2022, had not been received by the Committee. The Committee requested a consolidated report on all outstanding disciplinary matters which had not been received. The Committee requested that the Department provide a comprehensive progress report on its infrastructure programme as well as its maintenance programme by 31 January 2022 and continue to report on progress as part of the quarterly reporting process. The Committee had requested information on the plans to invest in Information Communications Technology (ICT) to speed up the process at the Masters Office in writing by 31 January 2022, which had not been received by the Committee. A number of these items appeared in the APP, but the Committee had not even been given what it had previously requested. Why should the Committee believe that the Department would implement successfully on the plan being promised?

Adv Doctor Mashabane stated that the matters relating to the BRRR could be communicated to the Committee, the Department had simply been focusing on the APP. The reports were available, he would check why these had not been submitted to the Committee.

The Chairperson stated that these were requested by 31 January 2022 – the deadline was quite clear, it was now May 2022, and the Committee had still not received this. These would have spoken to the APP that was presented.

Adv Doctor Mashabane noted this and stated that it was not as if the work had not been done. Part of what the APP reflected on was the work done in the previous financial year. He apologised that these had not reached the Committee, as requested. It would be made available.

Adv S Swart (ACDP) congratulated the new CFO. He expressed his dissatisfaction with the fact that the reports were not complied with and communicated by 31 January 2022. He asked if the Department took Parliament seriously. The Committee asked specifically for certain reports to be given by 31 January 2022. It was not acceptable for the DG to state that ‘work was being done.’ The challenge was that those reports would have enabled the Committee to evaluate the plans that were being presented. The challenge was that the Deputy Minister indicated that he was not in agreement with certain targets. One needed to acknowledge that some of the targets had been reduced. When one evaluated it at the end of the year – only a certain percentage of those targets were actually met – it was a challenge. When the Committee went on oversight, Members of Parliament (MPs) received many complaints about the efficiency of different departments, of the court sitting, of the Masters Office, of maintenance. Could the Committee in reality consider these targets, given that justice must be seen to be delivered and that citizens of the Country were requiring MPs to ensure that it had been delivered.

He acknowledged that there were issues of budget. The DG needed to go into detail on the reduction in certain targets. It was understood from the Deputy Minister that it was due to a lack of resources and COVID-19 – sadly so much was being blamed on COVID-19. Explanations were needed on this. One of the issues the Committee often received complaints about was the Masters Office. Had sufficient steps been taken to turnaround the Masters Office, particularly when it came to targets? He asked if this would be an appropriate forum to ask about the progress on the Special Investigating Unit’s (SIU) investigation into the State Attorney’s Office. The issue relating to universal access was disgraceful, that reduction was from 100 to 27 courts. The challenge was the sitting of the courts. He asked what the impact had been of the floods in KwaZulu-Natal. It was understood that this was a difficult issue to deal with. To what degree were court services and justice services plans being implemented to reinstitute courts that had been devastated by the floods?

Mr W Horn (DA) agreed with the questions and issues highlighted by the Chairperson and Adv Swart. It defeated the purpose of the Department’s appearances in front of the Committee if reports and feedback that was requested by certain due dates, simply did not appear. The Committee’s ability to entertain and interrogate the APP and the budget would have been enhanced if the Committee had received the agreed upon reports by the end of January 2022. This was informed by the issues that were plaguing the Department and the effect it had on the lives of South Africans. The context of this interrogation was that the Committee needed to bear in mind that ordinary South Africans who were dependent on the Department and its various branches and entities for services were being left in the lurch in a specific time in which people were confronted with a myriad of other issues. In that sense, the plight of people, whether at courts or at the Masters Office, were compounded by what was going on in the economy.

He noted slide five which indicated the ransomware attack and assurances given by the DG that the Department was moving forward from the ransomware attack. He appreciated that comment. Slide five was concerning as it was phrased in a way that created the perception that the strengthening of security protocols was something that would still unfold going forward. What had been done in terms of bolstering the security protocol of the Department? If a ransomware attack took place today, would the Department have a good chance of fending it off?

He noted the ongoing saga about the court recording technology. Unfortunately, the meeting towards the end of March 2022 seemed to not have concluded the matter. On the 17 April, a Sunday paper reported, which was also carried on News24 platforms, the effect of the secondary trauma suffered by people specifically in the sexual offences court. What was more worrying was that the news report made it quite clear that more or less a month after the Committee meeting had taken place this occurred. In that meeting the Department had reported that it was in the ‘final stages of concluding the contract. Sometimes the media did not get things ‘spot-on’ but he asked for a further explanation of the very firm undertaking and communication towards the end of March that Datacentrix was already on site.

He suggested, similarly to Adv Swart, that the Department needed to move beyond the point of using COVID-19 as an excuse. He was concerned about the backlogs in the criminal courts. The Committee had been made to understand that an integrated approach with a specific department-led initiative would result in a backlog plan. It was worrying that this presentation and the APP did not speak to this. It was the Committee’s understanding that the Department would play a leading role in coordinating the establishment of a backlog plan. Slide 13 spoke about a Sheriffs Bill – how far was the development of this Bill? This was informed by very specific issues that seemed to be plaguing the sheriffs industry. To what extent was the legal profession involved in re-crafting/redrafting the whole architecture around sheriffs?

He agreed with Adv Swart about the Masters Office issue. Unfortunately, it did not address the real issues at the Masters Office. There needed to be better communication about why matters were not progressing. In many cases attorneys were not informed by the Masters Office about what was preventing them from issuing letters of executorship, for example. There needed to be better communication. Responsibility needed to be placed on the Masters Offices to effectively communicate what was amiss, in terms of the compliance documentation, the perceptions around the Masters Office would then not improve. The targets around the State law advisors in no way spoke to the improvement of the quality of the services from the State Law advisors. What specific measures were being put in place in that regard? If one turned to the Sexual Offences Court, it needed to be stated that it remained a worry that there forever seemed to be delays in the rollouts of these. When the Gender Based Violence Acts were being processed, the Committee was assured that a parallel process was unfolding in the Department to develop the necessary legislation for final implementation. The assent happened toward the end of January 2022 - so where were those regulations?

In terms of court instructions, this was a ticking time bomb for the Department. The Minister admitted that in 2007, 15 years earlier, the Rustenburg Magistrates Court Complex was first identified as a court in need of major maintenance. The Court was temporarily closed at some point, measures were put in place to get it operational again. The Department claimed that it was not to be blamed for this; It was put down to the Department of Public Works. Rustenburg was one of the bigger centres in the Country. The attitude of the Department on these issues was contributing to the issues around court infrastructure. Similarly, with contract management, he was not convinced that the mere fact that there was now a full-time CFO would be the magic wand that would fix contract management issues. He renewed the plea that the Committee be afforded full information as to the contract management system, so that going forward it would prevent court recording technology contracts lapsing and not being renewed in time. On slide 61, he referred back to the issue on Tuesday when the Minister appeared before the Committee, the targets and the manner in which the APP approached the integrated justice system, with one Key Performance Indicator (KPI) being identified in the upcoming two financial years, strengthened the perception that this was a dead horse being flogged. It was unacceptable the way the APP went about this very important project – unfortunately it seemed to repetitively be money being poured down the drain.

Adv G Breytenbach (DA) stated that she was largely covered by the previous inputs. What measures had been put in place to ensure that expiring contracts were attended to prior to expiry? There could not be a situation where contracts expired, and money was totally wasted on stop-gap maintenance issues and contracts were negotiated at gun point. This was not new. It had been coming for many years. She asked for a more comprehensive discussion about the measures and mitigations in place to deal with the shocking state of infrastructure, both office and court infrastructure. There needed to be some plans in place. One could no longer allow this skin-deep glossing over of serious issues.

Dr W Newhoudt-Druchen (ANC) echoed what the Chairperson had said about the reduction in targets, it was a huge concern. The budgets had been reduced – this was not new. Court intermediaries filled an important function, especially during the course of the Committee’s deliberations on the three GBV Bills. The intermediaries were necessary to support the victims. The intermediary numbers were reduced, and their salaries were reduced. In the APP presented, it said that there would be 20 court intermediaries introduced in the Sexual Offences Courts. Would there be enough intermediaries, would they have the capacity to do the huge amount of work required of them in the Sexual Offences Courts?

It was previously stated that the audio system visual rollout was delayed. In the 2022/23 APP, it stated that the audio visual system was ready for rollout, what was the plan for this, given that it was delayed previously? In the Office of the Family Advocate – that budget had been reduced. Why had that branch budget specifically been reduced – when the victims were mainly children?

She was concerned about the sexual offences cases backlog. The backlog did not help the victims especially if the victim went to make the case, these delays caused cases to be written off. How would the Department ensure that the backlog, specifically in relation to sexual offences cases, was reduced? In the reports of the oversight visits – the facilities and infrastructure were not up to standard. The Masters Office in Limpopo for example just had a lot of stairs and the lift was not functioning. This excluded persons with disabilities and the elderly – what was the Department doing to ensure that the lift was functional? She asked if the Solicitor General’s contract had been extended.

She had received a video from a deaf person that morning about issues of accessing court services. He had needed a sign language interpreter. He was in in the Magistrates Court and he had been waiting for the interpreter. When the interpreter eventually arrived, it was an elderly person, who’s signing was not understood by the client. She made the request that in the courts, the South African Sign Language interpreters used needed to be proper interpreters. This was part of access to justice and access to courts. Many of the older Sign Language interpreters did not use current language, and language had evolved.

She highlighted the issue of invoices needing to be paid within 30 days. The Chairperson had indicated that the target was reduced from 100 %. Why did the Department decide to reduce it to 98 %?

Mr R Dyantyi (ANC) stated that this exercise involved the Department coming to the Committee together with the Executive presenting its plan of what would be done. This was different to considering how the Department had performed. Was the APP credible? The DG made an important point, the Committee had in 2020 proposed that the Department needed a rescue plan. The Committee had deliberately said that it wanted a rescue plan not a turnaround plan. The DG suggested that a turnaround plan had been implemented, which suggested that the Department had dealt with the ‘cosmetics’ instead of the hard work.

The Chairperson stated that in the APP, it said that 2022 was the year of the community and included extensive programmes to interact with community. What were the specific deliverables for the rollout of this outreach programme? The Committee needed to see deliverables on that basis to ask Parliament to fund it. What could not be measured, could not be funded. Was the current structure of the Department approved by the DPSA? If it was, when was it approved? There seemed to be a lack of urgency in dealing with vacant positions. To support that, the Department had changed that deliverable to 10 % of vacancies over the medium-term. The issue of vacancies was urgent. Changing the target of 10 %, which was universally accepted by government, was unacceptable. How did the new service delivery plans differ from the old plans? There were no indicators in the 2022/23 APP, which measured client satisfaction with service delivery, with respect to critical justice services. He asked why this was.

He indicated a number of the targets that had been removed. The percentage of significant findings target was removed, the percentage of Rand value discretionary procurement allocated to exempted micro-enterprises and qualifying small enterprises was removed. The percentage of disciplinary hearings finalised within 90 days from the date of the matter, was removed. The number of backlogs on disciplinary hearing cases for misconduct resolved, was removed. The number of grievances backlogs resolved, was removed. The percentage of Rand value of discretionary procurement allocated to women, was removed. On the reduced targets, the pecentage of undisputed and valid invoices paid within 30 days was reduced to 98 % from 100 %.

He noted that the position of the Solicitor General was advertised. He asked when the position would be permanently filled. The Office of the Legal Services Ombuds was not operational. Why was it not operational and when would it be operationalised? There was currently R1.8 billion in the President’s Fund for community rehabilitation projects, that was under the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC). The Community rehabilitation project team was established in 2017 to coordinate and fast-track implementation. It was unclear what progress had been made on that. It was an emotive project that did not seem to be getting the necessary priority. There was an Integrated Justice System (IJS) Report – that report had been requested and the Committee had not received it. In 2021/22, the Department still had 13 of the recommendations to implement in 2022/23, yet the IJS indicator had been removed. If the 13 recommendations were implemented, how were they implemented? When the Committee went to the Polokwane High Court, the Committee went to the Office of the Directors of Public Prosecutions (DPP) and the Chambers of the Judges and the Masters Office – the situation was very bad. No one should be in a position to sit there for five minutes, it was very hot, as there were no aircons. At the Supreme Court of Appeal – there was a big generator that only lit the passages. When there was loadshedding, the court could not work. That was not the Department of Public Works’ function. That procured generator should be assisting the functions of the courts. Those things were the starting point. There were wiring problems in some of the courts. He asked that the DG address some of these issues. How much would it cost to fix the court infrastructure? Was the extent of the challenges known by the Department?

Adv Doctor Mashabane responded to the comment about the presentation of a ‘credible’ APP. The Department had presented an objective plan that it felt was credible. He indicated that DPWI was responsible for all public facilities, and this was where the Department needed the assistance of the Committee. He noted that the Minister and Deputy Minister had met with DPWI in February 2022 to try and resolve some of the issues. The generators were not the only issue, there were issues around water – which all depended on DPWI. The Department had not the skills to do that work. It would require a budget from Treasury to appoint people to handle that.

An updated structure was needed to deal with the issues the Department was facing. The structure was submitted to the Department of Public Service and Administration for approval. The Department of Public Service and Administration did make some comments, which were predominantly around the budget. The structures proposed would not cost more than what the Department was currently spending. If anything, the proposed structure would help the Department manage the limited resources it had. 

The vacancy rate had been reduced at a senior management level to below 10 % which was the acceptable level. The year before the vacancy rate had sat at 27 %. In the space of a year, the Department had managed to fill a number of chief director posts and more than 11 director posts. The Department remained committed to keeping the vacancy rate below that point.

The Chairperson asked for specifics, such as which posts had been filled on a temporary basis in 2020? The Committee, the year before last, indicated to the Department and the Minister that there needed to be certainty around such positions. To state that there needed to be ‘job evaluations’ etc, was not good enough.

Adv Doctor Mashabane stated that processes, such as this, depended on the Department of Public Service and Administration. The Deputy Director for Corporate Services was recently appointed. All posts required a job evaluation. For many years, those processes did not take place and needed to be initiated; knowledge was required to conduct these. He noted the point made by the Chairperson. If one was chasing a project that had no timeline, it made everybody very relaxed.

The Chairperson stated that the statutes past by this Parliament needed to be implemented. When was a permanent appointment expected?

Adv Doctor Mashabane stated that the position was not currently vacant, the contract had been extended by one year. The processes would be finalised before the contract lapsed. The Department could only commit to what it could ‘control.’ What was outside of the Department’s control would mainly relate to Cabinet processes, which would be difficult to commit to.

The Chairperson stated that once Cabinet processes were started, they did not take that long. He asked that the Deputy Minister raise this with the Minister, that the Committee was generally not happy with the fact that there were too many acting appointments in critical positions. There was still an Acting Commissioner – these things needed to come to an end. It was difficult for someone to give strategic leadership if that person did not have some form of tenure.

Deputy Minister Jeffery stated that he would communicate this to the Minister.

Adv Doctor Mashabane stated that interacting with the community was non-negotiable. The lack of services impacted the poor and marginalised. The idea was to reach out to communities. The Department needed to educate and engage members of the community and understand their experiences of services. The public needed to appreciate the processes that needed to be followed to access services, including taking services to places which would ordinarily be far away from the service points. Most services were accessed through the courts, in some cases there was more than 50 kilometres to reach the courts.

The media report, mentioned by Mr Horn, was not true. The media simply needed to sell newspapers; if the media gave the impression of a government department not working – it was likely that it would attract bias. When the Department was before the Committee a month before, it presented accurate information about Datacentricx. The backlog plan had been finalised.

Some of the issues highlighted by the Chairperson had not specifically been dropped. There were specific requirements from the Department of Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation (DPME) that the Department had to comply with. There were operational plans that needed to carry all those targets that appeared the year before.

The challenge of IT in the Department was historical, it could not be resolved overnight. In the past, external consultants were used. There was never internal capacity built in the Department. As a result, from the mid-term strategic framework, modernisation became a big issue. The ransomware attack was simply a situation of ‘a matter of time.’ Thereafter the Department sat down and assessed the situation. The Department came to the realization that it needed to build up from the ground. The focus was on building capacity.

Mr Fhedzisani Pandelani, Solicitor General, stated that measures had been put in place for the reduction of litigation costs. The Office of the Solicitor General, with the assistance of the heads of offices of the State Attorney and the approval of the Minister had developed about seven instruments to date that were mandated in terms of section 3(4) of the State Attorney Amendment Act. The one policy developed was the contingent management policy. All of the policies applied to the ‘entirety’ of the State. Three of the policies were approved by Cabinet on 9 November 2021, that was Coordination and Management of all State Litigation. The second policy approved was the State Legal Representation Policy as well as Alternative Dispute Resolution Policy. Those spoke to the matters mentioned by Mr Horn. Owing to those policies and the standardisation of operations of the State in the conception of State legal services, those policies were critical. The Department had developed a litigation strategy, as well as the briefing and outsourcing of State legal work as well as another three policies that were approved. The Department was supposed to present the four policies on 4 April 2022. It was advised that certification was required in relation to briefing and outsourcing of State legal work, which was outstanding. The Department had since obtained the certification and were scheduled to appear before Cabinet in the next sitting. Those policies provided adequate measures to reduce State litigation.

He noted that the SIU investigations and consequences management may not have been reported on, in relation to the Offices of the State Attorney. Previously, the Committee had indicated that some of these issues, given the sensitivities, should be be parked, as it was currently under investigation. Some of the matters had been referred to the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA). He noted that he was still short of five heads of offices, that needed to be appointed.

The Chairperson asked what the problem was, why was it not at full capacity?

Mr Pandelani stated that Corporate Services would assist in the first quarter. The Minister had directed that it ought to be done. This was something that Corporate Services and HR needed to assist with in filling those positions.

Ms Thabitha Constance Mametja, Deputy Director General: Corporate Services, stated that the Department had embarked on the process of evaluating the positions left for the head of offices. The Department was busy finalising four of those appointments.

The Chairperson stated that this had been a problem for some time; the Minister had said that this was one of the issues that would need to be attended to. If evaluations had been made for other heads of state Attorneys Offices – why would it take so long for the others to be concluded?

Ms Mametja stated that some of the positions were not at a chief director level. It was understood that in terms of the State Attorneys Amendment Act, all of them were supposed to be heads of offices. She noted that it had taken some time and there had been a lot of communication on the matter. The recruitment process should not take more than 90 days.

The Chairperson asked that when the DG reported for the BRRR, this process needed to have been concluded.

Ms Mametja stated that a number of measures had been implemented in the IT space to ensure greater security. There were a number of security policies, standards, timelines and procedures that had been implemented. This would allow the Department to effectively control access to the IT systems and manage vulnerabilities, as well as monitor protect and respond to security threats. For the 2022/23 Budget, she had a meeting with her colleagues in the DPWI, it was noted that in their procurement plan for 2022/23 they had put aside around R832 million over the Medium-Term Expenditure Framework (MTEF) period for all the 88 projects. These projects were at different project phases. That budget was there to upgrade and repair the 88 projects.

The Chairperson stated that his point was that it needed to move from strategic to tactical planning. The global view that said that problems were generally in infrastructure, was the national picture. Then one could estimate how long it would take to fix the infrastructure problems, as well as the yearly budget. If one moved from one problem to the next, the Committee did not have a picture of how long it would take to address some of the issues at certain courts. He suggested this could be responded to in another meeting, such as the oversight report – where specific areas would be dealt with. The Committee needed to know how the infrastructure issues were being dealt with.

Ms Mametja stated that the DG had dealt with the issue of the KZN floods. Meeting the day before with the DPWI, the Department was informed that assessments were already done by the technical team on the 35 courts that were impacted by the KZN floods. The damage included flooding of buildings, roof damage, broken pipes and window panes as well as other minor issues. 17 Service providers had already been appointed. Some of the DPWI engineers had done assessments and designs for some of the offices. The Department was in regular consultation with the DPWI.

On the lift issue, by Friday 13 May 2022, these should be operational, except for two lifts that required parts that had to be ordered from abroad. The Department would work hard to ensure that the vacancy rate remained below 10 %. Overall, in terms of the departmental vacancy rate, the Department was already at 8.1 %, which was below 10 %. In the past year, the Department had appointed over 812 new employees. The DG had already indicated how many were appointed.

Ms Kalay Pillay, Deputy Director General: Legislative Development, responded to the questions about the three GBV Bills. The work to implement the three pieces of legislation were at an advanced stage. The Department had set itself the deadline for the end of June 2022. The Criminal Matters Amendment Act required the Minister to determine categories of intermediaries and to set terms for them. The consultation on that had been finalised. The Department was awaiting comment until 10 May 2022. The Sexual Offences Act draft had been submitted, public consultation had taken place, but the one outstanding step was that the Act required that the Department consult with particular ministers and the Department was awaiting those inputs, which was due in a couple of days. The Domestic Violence Bills were extensive legislation, a draft had been prepared which would go out for consultation. The Department was currently on track to meet the target of 30 June 2022. The Department was awaiting comment on the Sheriffs Bill.

Adv Martin Mafojane, Chief Maste, noted the question asked by Mr Horn – that the targets presented seemed not to address the issues. The issues were frustrating and irritating. Addressing the issues would address the perceptions. There were some interventions started in the Masters Office in Johannesburg, six months earlier. This had begun being rolled out to the Durban Masters Office. He had been working with the IT personnel who would operationalise the desktops received and be distributed across the country to Masters offices. Cape Town had been trained two to three weeks earlier. The plan had been presented to Exco about two weeks earlier, this was given to the Ministry and then shared with Exco. He emphasised the need for improved efficiency and its priority, as well as sensitivity. Improved IT would assist with efficiency as well as improved management.

Adv Doctor Mashabane suggested that there were milestones that could be presented on a six-monthly basis. The system was old, but at the same time there had not been the concerted deployment to assist with all manner of things. Pure management was needed to deal with the queues seen all over the country when one visited the Masters Offices. The year before the Minister authorised the SIU to deal with the matters of corruption and unethical behaviour. This was still a major challenge. The management and digitisation was part of what was needed.

A representative of the Department stated that there was coordination via institutions such as Home Affairs and the South African Police Services. In the 2021/22 APP, the Department had implemented the DPME’s assessment report. This was in their branch operational plan and was responding to remaining findings of recommendations made by the DPME. The report was available, this assessment report could be provided to the Committee.

The Chairperson stated that the report was available, but the Committee had asked for it a while before and not received it.

A representative of the Department stated that it would be made available to the Committee that afternoon.

Mr TZ Malema, Deputy Director General: Acting Head of Court Services, stated that there were plans that sat below the APP but would also be monitored very closely. Even though there were reductions in some of the KPIs, it did not mean that those targets disappeared, those KPIs were still part of the broader plans for the Department. The Department understood the frustrations of the public and the magistrates’ offices. Meetings had taken place on this. Setting up the IT systems across the country took time to ensure competent people were there. Where repairs needed to be done on site and the Department was able to do so, it was done. Some of the equipment needed had to be procured from overseas. Systems needed to be in place to conduct maintenance. Obviously, the Department wanted all the courts to be functional. That would be ideal. A number of options were considered, one of them to procure ordinary recording equipment – that was available. The main problem was that this might result in difficulties later when there were appeals. The DPME had initiated the process to procure more people – there were a lot of people that needed to be vetted. A framework had been set up to deal with the backlog. A Backlog Optimisation Committee had been set up. Consultations were taking place with the different stakeholders. The Department continued to see how to include persons with disabilities and further respect their rights. Capacity would be created and interfaced with people.

Adv Praise Kambula, Head of Promotion of the Rights of Vulnerable Groups, stated that with the disability-centric courts, the Department started with a large number and achieved 78 courts that were made compliant with the minimum standards for the Disability Strategy. The Department did not want to repeat the error made with the Sexual Offences courts of establishing them and moving on without looking into the issues of monitoring and ensuring full compliance with the strategy and minimum standards. A reasonable accommodation officer was introduced at all of the disability-centric courts established the year before. This ensured that there were services that were responsive to the needs of the disabled court users. This strategy was being implemented for the first time and needed to be monitored. In terms of the MTEF, the Department was required to establish 54 courts, which it had. The minimum standards would also be reviewed, engagements would take place with the disability community to see what could be improved upon, as this was a new programme.

The Chairperson asked for a list of those courts.

Dr Newhoudt-Druchen stated that her question about intermediaries had not been responded to.

Adv Breytenbach asked that a timeline be put on receiving the lists of courts.

The Chairperson asked that the list be provided by the following Tuesday end of business day.

Mr Malema stated that the main problem with the intermediaries, especially in Gauteng where there were fewer intermediaries, were funding limitations. This was being dealt with. Many of the heads of intermediaries, which were contract workers, moved as the rates were better elsewhere.

Ms Singo stated that Members were correct that there were already undisputed invoices. In line with the DPME Framework, the target needed to be adjusted to account for things beyond their control. Normally, the Department tried to pay everything on time. If there were changes to banking details, it was asked that this be changed on the central database, so that there were no issues. Currently almost 99 % of undisputed invoices were paid on time in the previous financial year.

The Chairperson asked why the target was reduced to 98 %, if 99 % could be achieved.

Ms Singo stated that it was based on historical information. When the target was set the Department had achieved 95 %, in the year before last, and had now pushed it to 98 %. The improvement in the 2022 year meant that the Department was moving toward system free issues to achieve 100 %. The Department wanted to set realistic targets. When the Department presented to Treasury, reasons were provided, and the targets needed to be realistic. The target was in line with the Framework.

The Chairperson asked what the ‘science’ was behind the two % drop.

Ms Singo stated that such variance, of two %, was usually acceptable.

The Chairperson stated that it was a Cabinet decision and should be a serious priority of the Department, especially a Department that had a budget of over R20 billion. Small businesses were collapsing because government was not paying on time. It was not a ‘small’ issue.

Adv Doctor Mashabane stated that the reason that 100 % could not be set was because of the electronic system for example, which created problems if it did not work. Sometimes payments were made in 35 days, when there were system problems. Many people were not coming to work due to the pandemic levels, which posed a challenge at time, as the people that made payment were not always available. The two % variance was needed. The targets did not limit the Department from achieving higher. 

Mr Terence Raseroka, Head of Strategy, stated that the performance plans were reviewed every five years. The Department was in line with what the Framework required. 

Adv Doctor Mashabane stated that he did not agree that the turnaround versus rescue plan was simply ‘cosmetic.’ That turnaround plan was being reviewed. COVID-19 was not used as an excuse. Despite all the challenges the Department had experienced, there were officials and courts. There were committed workers to ensure that the courts remained open through the pandemic waves etc. No courts closed due to COVID-19, barring lockdown level 1.

The Chairperson asked why the Office of the Legal Services Ombuds was not operational. The question about the President’s Fund for the community rehabilitation programme under the TRC had not been answered.

Adv Doctor Mashabane stated that he had a discussion with the Office of the Legal Services Ombuds and the newly appointed Judge; he was waiting for a date from the Department and Minister. Work had been done in that Office; officials had been seconded from the Department to assist. There was an issue of the budget. There was a skeletal structure in the Office – that could start moving toward a norm and appointments. There would be a website that would be launched and emails that could be sent.

A sitting was staged at Constitutional Hill on the issue of the TRC Rehabilitation Programme, where payment was demanded. There was an issue of cash payments that should have been made – that came to light out of the report. The Department could not accept the once off amount of R30 000 proposed by some of the community organisations. The issue of payment of school fees for children, grandchildren and great grandchildren was emphasised. The Department of Education was going to absorb the recommendations of the TRC that would devolve to the specific departments which would turn it into machinery that dealt with education related issues. It was unfortunate that it had been so many years since the TRC had made those recommendations. The DPME would review the recommendations and make conclusions to the Department to be presented to Cabinet.

Ms Pillay stated that there were no legal impediments but there was still the need for lay persons to sit on the committees, which would be done.

Mr Dyantyi suggested that the DG had responded in a ‘confident manner’ in stating that the APP was credible. He suggested that a number of these things should come back to the Committee, given the responses provided. It could not be said, given the responses, that the plan was ‘credible.’

Adv Breytenbach followed on from what Mr Dyantyi had said, it showed that the deep-seated issues had not been improved on. It was a disappointing interaction.

Adv Doctor Mashabane stated that the APP got tested by the DPME, whatever tests used, generated comments, which the Department responded to. The Department was comfortable with this plan. An account was given to the South African public on how the budget, allocated to the Department, would be spent. Some of the targets previously achieved – did not appear in the APP again. The year before, on the transformation of State legal Services, there were policies that came out of the State Attorney Amendment Act of 2014 – once those targets were achieved, these did not appear again, some of them were time-bound. When one considered the MTEF, one was looking at a bigger picture – of five years. It was not fair to think that the APP was not credible.

Mr Dyantyi stated that the Committee had no problem calling the DPME on the issue of the credibility of the APP.

Deputy Minister Jeffery stated that it was clear the Department had a number of challenges and there was a lot of work that needed to be done to address those. He noted the comments about the changing targets and payment of invoices within 30 days. He had strongly opposed changing that indicator, government’s target was 100 %, how could the Department’s target be less. This was payment of undisputed and valid invoices only. He was in full agreement as evidenced in the related memorandum.

He noted the problems at the one court with sewerage issues, he had visited the court and he was not told about that. A contract was given to renovate the court, there was then a dispute between Public Works and the contractor, the contractor had left. Many contractors went into business rescue, which made it difficult for Public Works to control. He was concerned about service delivery in the Masters Office. It would be good if the Portfolio Committee could include oversight visits to the Masters Office as part of its oversight visits that term. He had visited both Cape Town and Pretoria and produced reports on this. It was difficult to deal with some of the backlogs. Blockages were being identified nationally which needed to be addressed. There was a general problem relating to accountability when it came to judicial governance. The response from the OCJSA had still not been formally tabled. The judiciary was not accountable to Parliament or to anyone for its judgements.

Mr Dyantyi stated that those National Efficiency Committees would be taken up with the JSC’s annual report processes. The JSC, in terms of section 6 of the Judicial Services Act is supposed to account to the Committee.

The Chairperson stated that when the Minister appeared before the Committee, the Committee dealt with the issue of the recording devices that were not working. People needed to bear in mind that it was not only what was heard but also evidenced by oversight visits. He realised that APPs were annual – but it needed to be considered how each year contributed meaningfully to the bigger problem. He was not convinced that this APP did justice to it at all. Public Works contributed a great deal to the Department’s problems – it was frustrating – engagements had taken place with them. He noted that there were issues of generators being stolen but the Committee only knew this from its oversight visits, the same was said of the generator that only lit the passages and resulted in court processes being put on hold. He highlighted the state of many of the holding cells. A group went to Mthatha, one of the issues picked up was that the Office of the Master was in a bad situation, it was normal for people to sleepover just to be served. It was operating out of the Catholic Church. It was concerning that the appropriate buildings were not being used.

Mr Dyantyi had consistently asked for a risk register in the past. It was becoming clear that the executive or strategic leadership of an organisation must concern itself with risks and how to mitigate those risks, and if they materialised how to recover from those mishaps. There was a potential risk where documents were concerned that involved the lives of people – which could burn down; this had happened in Venda. There needed to be a serious response to the problems encountered. Eskom and Denel had trained thousands of qualified artisans such as plumbers and electricians. Some of the problems that were picked up in the magistrates courts included the need for artisans. The Committee had visited various magistrates courts, one of the concerns was that something tragic could happen at any time due to the state of infrastructure. The magistrates there had the same concern. If one went to the Limpopo High Court – an independent engineer would never say that court was fit for purpose. How was the budgeting and planning process responding to those risks? These were not reflected in the APP. There needed to be further engagement beyond the budget process. The message needed to be communicated to the Minister, the executive authority, the Deputy and Minister needed to have far more interaction with the top leadership of the Department to ensure that monitoring took place.

The meeting was adjourned.