Committee Report on Budget

Meeting report

After welcoming Members and noting apologies, the Chairperson outlined the purpose of the meeting was to consider the Committee’s Draft Reports on the Budget Votes of the Departments of Justice and Constitutional Development, Department of Correctional Services and the Office of the Chief Justice. The Reports were circulated the day before amongst Members. Some time would be given to Members to go through read through the Reports prior to discussion. Legal Aid SA would be included in the Committee Budget Vote Report of the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development. Members would be given more time to consider this addition.

Members agreed.

Report of the Portfolio Committee on Justice and Correctional Services on Budget Vote 22: Office of the Chief Justice and Judicial Administration

The Chairperson took the Committee through the Report page by page and invited contributions and comments from Members for each page.

Mr W Horn (DA) commented that it is incorrect to refer to the Secretary-General of the Office of the Chief Justice as the “Minister’s proxy”.

Members were satisfied with the change to remove "proxy".

Mr R Dyanti (ANC) moved for adoption of the Report as amended.

Ms W Newhoudt-Druchen (ANC) seconded the motion.  

Adv G Breytenbacht (DA) noted the reservation of the Democratic Alliance.

Adv TE Mulaudzi (EFF) noted the reservation of the Economic Freedom Fighters.

Mr S Swart (ACDP) noted no major objection but first wanted to discuss the Report with his caucus.

The Report of the Portfolio Committee on Justice and Correctional Services on Budget Vote 22: Office of the Chief Justice and Judicial Administration, was adopted with amendments.

Report of the Portfolio Committee on Justice and Correctional Services on Budget Vote 21: Justice and Constitutional Development

The Chairperson noted the addition of Legal Aid South Africa was received and was distributed to Members. He suggested the Committee go through the additional information to be considered as part of the Report on the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development.

Members went through the Report page by page.

Mr Swart indicated that in the Budget Vote Debate, reservations and issues will be raised.

Mr Horn (DA) said that while nobody has been killed or endangered in the witness protection programme, with further budget cuts, the programme could be impeded on.

Mr Dyanti noted that under point 13.1.7, there should be the addition of: "the Committee would pursue the matter further"

The Chairperson expressed that it is a fair point to be clear on the effect of budget cuts to the programme.

Ms Christine Silkstone, Committee Content Advisor, suggested removing the phrase "threatened" and replace it with "witnesses are increasingly at risk because of lack of protection".

Ms Newhoudt-Druchen pointed out on page 38, the last line of point 13.3.2 does not make sense.

Ms Silkstone explained this was a typo and was meant to read "the reports are at an advanced stage" which would mean the rest of sentence falls away.

The Chairperson noted the corrections and continued. On page 43, the final paragraph in point 13.8.1 stated the position that "government departments are not required to work through the office of the State Attorney" appears incorrect.

Ms Silkstone stated that in her understanding, the policy was not finalised.

Mr Swart, as a former State Attorney, said it is required that departments work through the State Attorney. Uncertainty comes in where there might be conflict of interest and in that case an application for a private Attorney can be made. This must be justified so it is not seen as a wasteful and irregular expenditure. Where departments use private attorneys without a conflict of interest present requires attention.

Mr Horn stated that on page 51, the last sentence on point 17.2 proposed a different term to "quality" as it could refer to many things.

Ms Silkstone suggested it may be better to remove the sentence referring to quality.

Mr Dyanti objected that it he would not want to take it out as it is good to include reference to the quality of reports.

The Chairperson noted that most reports considered have not yet reached finality yet so it may be premature to refer to matters of quality.

Mr Dyanti conceded the word "quality" may be incorrect but there should be something that indicates concern with regard to the reports.

Ms NH Maseko-Jele (ANC) agreed rephrasing is necessary as not addressing the quality of reports can reflect incompetence.

Mr Dyanti stated that early reports are likely to be challenged so the reports should be improved moving forward. This was not to say that the reports were necessarily bad but what is produced should be comprehensive and leave less room for challenge.

Adv Mulaudzi said the reports of the Public Protector should not be the only reflection of the work done. The Constitution allows for anybody affected to review the work done and that the quality of a report is not the only outcome of quality work.

The Chairperson drew the attention of Members to point 17.2 where this matter is addressed and suggested it be used. He noted that the Committee will be called upon to hear a case and should not come across as having judged a case without it being heard.

Ms Silkstone suggested the word "quality" be removed for procedural reasons.

Mr Dyanti (ANC) remarked that departments should be called in to state whether or not they have addressed the concerns of the Committee instead of having the matters merely summarised in a report.  

Ms Silkstone noted the reports are a useful monitoring and tracking tool. All observations with regard to comprehensive written reports by a given date are organised via a table. For each paragraph, where departments are asked for a response, it is tabled. These tables were not added as she was unsure as to whether the Committee wanted it. She expressed her apologies and recognised the difficulty expressed by Members.

Mr Dyanti (ANC) said he respects the commitment to the Report but for completeness sake, it should be reflected in the report

The Chairperson suggested it be included in the final Report as it would make the work of the Committee easier.  

Ms Newhoudt-Druchen asked that point 2.3 be changed from "hearing impaired" to "people with hearing loss" or "deaf and hard of hearing" as it is a sensitive matter in the community.

Ms Maseko-Jele (ANC) moved for adoption of the Committee Report with amendments.

Mr Dyanti seconded the motion.

Mr Horn reserved the position of the DA.

Adv Mulaudzi reserved the position of the EFF.

Mr Swart reserved the position of the ACDP.

The Report of the Portfolio Committee on Justice and Correctional Services on Budget Vote 21: Justice and Constitutional Development was adopted with amendments.

Report of the Portfolio Committee on Justice and Correctional Service on Budget Vote 18: Correctional Services

The Chairperson noted that Members received the Report that same morning. Members were given time to read through the Report.

 Mr Horn suggested a due date should accompany any request for a detailed written report, for example 30 August, as in the previous report.

Mr Dyanti supported the inclusion of a due date but not 30 August as it was too far for a due date.

The Chairperson suggested 31 July.

The Committee Secretary proceeded to remind Members that the Committee Reports will be tabled before the House within two weeks.

The Chairperson said there should not be a general date for all as some big departments might not be in a position to consider them. Any due dates should be an ongoing part of continuous oversight engagement.

The Chairperson noted on page 12, point 6.4, the statement "the Committee believes that other government departments" should be removed as it does not mean that all contracts with the company are illegal. The Committee should always promote justice.

Mr Dyanti suggested point 6.11 on page 14 read "urges more practical steps be taken to achieve targets". As an oversight body, the Committee is meant to monitor.

Mr Horn stated the reference to section 49G, with regard to bail protocol, should be unpacked as to have it may be understood by someone without working knowledge of the Act.

Mr Dyanti moved for adoption of the Committee Report as amended.

Adv H Mohamed (ANC) seconded the motion.

Mr Horn expressed the reservation of the DA.

Adv Mulaudzi rejected the Report on behalf of the EFF. He referenced state capture and looting of correctional services during the Fifth Parliament as the reason for the rejection.

Mr Swart expressed the reservation of the ACDP.

The Report of the Portfolio Committee on Justice and Correctional Service on Budget Vote 18: Correctional Services was adopted with amendments.

The Chairperson, Mr Swart and Adv Mohamed commended the Committee staff on their hard work.

The meeting was adjourned.