Legal Practice Regulations; Integrated Criminal Justice Strategy/IJS/Justice Modernisation programme; with Deputy Minister

Meeting report

(PMG missed the first few minutes of the meeting)

The Committee began the meeting by considering its draft programme for the term. The Chairperson said that the Committee would try to have some meetings during plenary, especially to deal with the various Bills, so that it did not have to sit in the evenings.  The programme would be adjusted when necessary.

Adv S Swart (ACDP) said he was concerned that 24 and 25 August were allocated for inputs from the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development (DoJ&CD), whilst only one morning was allocated for public comments. That might have to be changed, so that more time could be given for public hearings on the Cannabis Bill.

The Chairperson noted Adv Swart’s comment, and said it would be looked at. He welcomed the Legal Practice Council members, members of the DoJ&CD, and Mr John Jeffery, Deputy Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development.

Adv G Breytenbach (DA) said that herself and Mr W Horn (DA) would be unavailable on 18 August due to party commitments and thus Mr J Selfe (DA) would attend the meeting in their stead.

The Chairperson asked if it would be possible for him to be excused early from the meeting the following day in order to make his flight to Cape Town. The Committee would elect a chair in his place if the meeting was not yet finished.

Dr W Newhoudt-Druchen (ANC) said that she would be going to receive her second vaccine dose on the 20th of August, and thus would be in and out of the meeting on Friday.

Legal Practice Council: amendment of regulations presentation

Ms Wilma Louw, State Legal Advisor, DoJ&CD, took the Committee through the presentation on the proposed amendments to the Regulations regarding practical vocational training of candidate attorneys and pupils.

Current Regulations

In terms of the current regulation six, to satisfy the practical vocational training requirements, candidate attorneys must serve under a practical vocational training contract for either 24 months and complete a structured course work programme of 150 hours during or after service under the contract, or for 12 months and complete a structured course work programme of 400 hours prior to registration of the contract.

To satisfy the practical vocation training requirements as per regulation seven, pupils must serve under a practical vocational training contract for 12 months and complete a structured course work programme of 400 hours prior or during service under the contract.

Proposed amendments

The Legal Practice Council (LPC) requested amendments to these two regulations, with the challenge of securing necessary training and the inequity relating to the training itself identified as major barriers to entry into the legal profession.

A compulsory uniform practical vocational training programme to be completed by all candidate legal practitioners would be implemented, taking into account the differences between the attorney and advocate profession. The programme will have dedicated coursework aimed at empowering candidate legal practitioners.

Amendment of Regulations

Regulation three will amend regulation six, and regulation four will amend regulation seven. Regulation three will effect a small amendment to align the periods of previous experience an attorney of Legal Aid South Africa or a legal aid institution must have with that of other attorneys before they can take on a candidate attorney. Regulation four will do the same for advocates before they can take on a pupil.

The proposed amendment in regulation four is that pupils will have the option of doing either 12 months practical vocational training plus 150 hours of structured course work during or after the practical vocational training, or 400 hours of structured course work before the practical vocational training plus 12 months practical vocational training. This will provide for flexibility and enhance access to training for pupils. Regulation four of the amendment Regulations further allow advocates to engage two pupils.

Regulation five of the amendment Regulations provide that the structured course work programme will be the same for candidate attorneys and pupils, and that the LPC may determine the mode and method of instruction to enhance access to training.

The amendment Regulations will come into operation on the date of publication thereof in the Government Gazette.

Discussion

Adv Swart asked if there were any entities which opposed the proposed amendments. If there were any objections what was done to accommodate them?

Dr Newhoudt-Druchen sought clarity why the DoJ&CD was exempted from conducting a socio-economic impact assessment on the amendment Regulations. Was this still to be done, and if so when will it be conducted?

The Chairperson asked if there would be any difference in the course content of the 400 hour and 150 hour programmes available to candidate legal practitioners. Looking at the Legal Practice Act, for candidate attorneys, those who had done the 400 hours, which is a six month course, get an exemption an have to do articles for 12 months rather than two years, but the same does not apply to pupils. Pupils who complete the 400 hours will still have to do 12 months of practical vocational training at the bar. What was the difference then for those pupils who do the 150 hour programme?

Ms Louw replied that the only comments not in favour of the proposed amendments were received from the Cape Bar Council and the General Council of the Bar. The basic principle behind their objections was that the distinction between training for candidate attorneys and pupils would be blurred, and that the existing differentiation should remain. These objections were submitted to Mr Ronald Lamola, Minister of Justice and Correctional Services. After consideration, Minister Lamola decided to proceed with the draft Regulations as submitted by the LPC.

On the socio-economic impact assessment, she said that when the first set of Regulations were completed in 2018, the DoJ&CD did a full assessment on the Regulations, including those which were being amended now. Thus, as this was merely an amendment to the Regulations, the Presidency felt that it was unnecessary to conduct another assessment.

Adv Swart asked if the content of those objections could be made available to the Members, so that they could understand the nature of the concerns of the two Bar Councils. He added it was important for the Members to also look into those objections.

Ms Louw said that she would see that the objections were submitted to the Committee Secretary.

The Chairperson said that looking at the current six month training for attorneys, before this proposal, was already a packed programme. With the proposed amendments, more courses were being included, such that candidates would have to complete 24 modules in six months. Would that be fair to the prospective attorneys?

Ms Melissa Murray, Senior Manager: Education and Training, LPC, said that there were three requirements that all legal practitioners had to meet before being admitted. The first was doing the practical vocational training programme, which was the structured course work. The second was completing training with an attorney, or under an accredited Bar. The third and final requirement was writing LPC admission exams to enter the profession.

Regarding the difference between the 400 hour and 150 hour programmes, all of the topics in the Regulations would be covered in both courses. The 150 hour course was focused on exam preparation, and the 400 hour programme was more detailed, but the same content was covered, with more practical components.

On the non-reduction of service for pupils, the minimum year for admission for pupils and candidate attorneys was one year. Pupils were able to do their six months of training during that one year, as were candidate attorneys, before writing the exams and being admitted. The 150 hour course would not allow someone to reduce their period of service.

The current six months training programme was very packed, hence if and when the amendment Regulations came into force, the LPC would relook at the amount of time spent on each module to ensure that candidates were not overburdened. Pupils had never done courses on wills and estates and bookkeeping, and had focused on motion court and trial advocacy courses, and candidate attorneys had done the opposite. It was found that all candidate practitioners should be doing those courses, as they would benefit from doing courses that they previously would not have done. This would also allow a transition from being an advocate to being an attorney and vice versa.

Ms Christine Qunta, Member: Education Committee, LPC, said that the 400 hour programme enabled candidate attorneys who were not able to obtain articles to do the 6 months course before completing articles and become more marketable thereafter. Before forwarding the objections, it was noticed that the one major concern was that candidate legal practitioners writing one examination was one step too far towards fusion in the profession. The second major concern was that practice management and wills and estates courses were irrelevant for advocates.

She said that there was no question of fusion, as the pupils would undergo exactly the same training they had been doing. They would get all of the necessary practical training as before. The amendments would enable candidate practitioners to move more easily within the field. Further, it equips advocates with expertise regarding wills and estates, which they will invariably deal with during their years of practice. Hence, the amendments were not changing anything, it was merely asking advocates to do certain important courses that were not done before. All of the other subjects currently in regulation seven were not removed, a few courses were merely added.

The Chairperson said that in other jurisdictions, the 400 hour course was called a postgraduate diploma in legal practice, but in South Africa it was merely called practical legal training. He asked if any thought had been given to changing the title to a postgraduate diploma in legal practice.

Ms Murray said the practical legal training was more advanced than what candidate practitioners would have done in their degree, but it would not be a standalone qualification as it merely assists the candidates in writing their LPC exams and becoming legal practitioners. If the LPC was to make it a standalone qualification, it would have to be aligned to the relevant standards. The course was a bridge between university and practice. The LPC had not considered changing the labelling of the course and how it was recognised.

Adv Nicholas Tee, Consultant: Education Committee, LPC, said the name of the practical vocational training came from section 26 of the Legal Practice Act. He asked Members to consider that the purpose of section 26 was to be a minimum qualification. He believed that all legal practitioners should have that minimum foundation, as it was very important. This did not mean that advocates did not get further training at the various Bars.

He said that regulation seven confirmed that minimum requirement. In order for candidate practitioners to complete the training, there had to be practical vocational training contracts. This was where the blocking of access into the profession occurred. There are insufficient current legal practitioners who are able to give those contracts and take on candidate practitioners. There were avenues that the LPC was considering improving this situation. For example, the LPC had legal practitioners who were in practice and those who were not in practice. Those non-practicing legal practitioners were an untapped resource. Utilising this resource of fully qualified legal practitioners should be considered. This would enhance access to the profession.

Adv Swart asked how the process would work practically to allow for candidate practitioners to work under non-practicing legal practitioners to complete their practical vocational training and gain admission. He also asked Adv Tee if he was happy with the amendment Regulations as they were formulated. He was unsure if the amendments created an obstacle, as some of the required courses were difficult and may deter some people from trying to enter the profession.

Adv Tee said that the amendment Regulations would confirm the minimum standard foundation and keep the two types of practitioners separate. The Legal Practice Act also provided for a new type of practitioner, namely an advocate with a trust account, which was very analogous to a sole practitioner attorney. The General Council of the Bar was speaking to the LPC to find a practical way to get non-practicing legal practitioners to sign up to be able to offer practical vocational training contracts. These were people in Chapter nine institutions, legal advisors, and attorneys and advocates who had done a certain number of years’ worth of training. However, in their current positions they would not be able to oversee the intense training, hence the LPC was looking at accrediting institutions to do this intense training.

It was vital to open up the practical vocational training programmes to enhance access to the profession, as it is very difficult for many law graduates to obtain articles and pupillage. The LPC was on hiatus at the moment, due to the upcoming elections, but in the near future there would be some very good proposals on how to harness more practical vocational training contracts and get the transformation required.

Ms Kathleen Dlepu, Chairperson, LPC, thanked the Chairperson for allowing the Legal Practice Council the opportunity to speak to the Committee.

Deputy Minister Jeffery said that it was now up to the Committee to consider the amendment Regulations. said that he had nothing to add.

The Chairperson said the Committee would await the information requested by Adv Swart. This matter would be considered very soon, to ensure that it went before the National Assembly before the term ended. He noted that some of the information advertised by some universities was extremely outdated. The relevant stakeholders had to be engaged to ensure that the public received recent and accurate information. He was interested to know when the issue of calling the training programme a postgraduate diploma would be considered and whether the LPC’s views would change. He thanked the DoJ&CD and the LPC for the presentation.

DoJ&CD: Justice Modernisation Programme Presentation

Adv Doctor Mashabane, Director-General, DoJ&CD, thanked the Committee for the opportunity. He apologised for only submitting the presentation the previous evening, and said that happened because they were trying to submit a quality document. The Modernisation programme was part of the strategic objectives of the DOJCD’s plan for the next five years, and it was thus prioritised in its Annual Performance Plan.

Modernisation progress

Mr Henton Katz, Acting Chief Information Officer, DoJ&CD, took the Committee through the Modernisation Programme.

The Modernisation Programme was based around four strategic themes. The first was ‘Information Technology (IT) for public’, which focused on providing public access to justice services by means of online and third party channels. The second was ‘IT for business’, which focused on digitalising and digitising processes of case tracking, financial management, and record management. The third was ‘IT for internal administration’, which focused on improving internal productivity for business. The fourth was ‘IT for IT’, which focused on improving internal IT productivity through technical performance monitoring.

In terms of the roadmap for the current financial year, the DoJ&CD was looking specifically at finalising the initiatives concerning services to the public. Almost all of the online initiatives were developed and currently being tested, with the hope that being that they will be piloted and ready for deployment in December, with national deployment to take place from January. A cautious approach was being taken to the online solutions, hence the lengthy development and testing processes.

In the past six months, audio visual remand had been implemented in 18 new sites, bring the total to 65 sites with this capacity. The maintenance online portal had been piloted at a point in Durban to test its technical stability. The deceased estates online portal and trusts online portal were currently in their testing phases, and would be piloted in September at the Masters Office in Pretoria. The expungements online portal and civil online portal were currently in their testing phases, and would be piloted in September in Pretoria and Polokwane respectively. The protection orders online portal and National Register for Sexual Offences (NRSO) online portal were currently in development phases, and would be piloted in Pretoria in November. The Court Audio Visual System (CAVS) was in its procurement phase, and its rollout was expected to start in 2022. the DoJ&CD was implementing speed points at courts around the country to make payment of bail easier, with 158 courts now having this capacity.

Video conferencing had been rolled out to 18 boardrooms to date, with more to be completed to allow for remote hearings. The deployment for the telephony infrastructure was currently underway and expected to be finalised in 2022, with 283 sites due to be upgraded. Wi-fi would be rolled out to 50 additional sites to allow for public access to the justice services. A project had been started to upgrade bandwidth across all sites, and about 8 000 laptops and desktops would be replaced by 2022 to ensure easier access to electronic systems.

Modernisation risks

Due to ageing infrastructure, certain project pilots had to be prioritised, and the current procurement of the required infrastructure was being fast-tracked. Service delivery innovation was being utilised to acquire additional resources for functional support. The loss of contract staff would affect the completion of certain solutions and projects, and hence some projects may be deprioritised to accommodate the APP required projects.

Information and communication technology environment

Adv JB Skosana, Deputy Director-General: Court Services, DOJ&CD, took the Committee through the presentation on the Integrated Justice System (IJS) Project.

Information and Communication Technology (ICT) in the courts was informed by two interventions, namely those at departmental level and the IJS Project, which is meant to integrate the systems across the Justice, Crime Prevention and Security (JCPS) Cluster and facilitate the system’s integration from the South African Police Service (SAPS) to the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA), the courts, the DoJ&CD, and the Department of Correctional Services (DCS).

There were various challenges, such as issues of network connectivity and weak bandwidth, wi-fi integration, system slowness, and various capacity constraints which the Information and Systems Management (ISM) addressed. Modernisation was the route that had to be taken to take the justice system forward. Gauteng and KwaZulu-Natal were chosen as the two provinces that would be focused on due to the case backlogs.

A structure had been established to provide oversight on the use of IT across the justice system, and to ensure that strategic leadership was provided, and the implementation of processes would take place effectively. This structure was the Judiciary and Administration ICT Strategy Steering Committee (JAIT). Reporting for the modernisation would take place through the IJS, the Court Optimisation Committee, the ICT Steering Committee, and the JCPS Cluster.

IJS overview

The IJS Project was given impetus by the seven-point plan, which arose from a review of the criminal justice system in 2007. The primary objective of the IJS Project was to electronically enable and integrate the end-to-end criminal justice business processes through technology solutions and manage the related inter-departmental information exchanges across the criminal justice system.

Five key cluster integration priorities

There were three work packages. The first was criminal justice system integration, which consisted of the development of a single person identifier and Person Identification Verification Application (PIVA). The second was IJS case integration, which dealt with case management integration. The third was IJS business intelligence, which consisted of a 28 Key Performance Indicators (KPI) reporting dashboard and a single transversal database for the JCPS Cluster.

In terms of criminal justice system integration, the PIVA was successfully implemented at two specialised SAPS crime units, and the rollout was subsequently expanded. Information about accused persons was critical to assist the NPA. The solution was initially delivered as proof of concept at 33 police stations, and since its inception, over the past 46 months, the solution footprint had expanded to encompass 834 out of 1 157 SAPS stations nationally. From April 2019 till 30 June 2021, the solution successfully verified the identity of 421 913 persons, of which 230 719 had prior SAPS records, and of which 13 372 were identified as wanted persons. By using PIVA, all South African Social Security Agency (SASSA) beneficiaries were verified.

In terms of IJS case integration, from April till June 2021, 83 436 cases were processed electronically. These electronic information exchanges included associated docket ready notifications, requests, charge sheets, and case outcome integrations. The management of providing Legal Aid services to citizens was overhauled by a new electronic application solution. In July 2019, a key milestone was reached, with the first successful undertaking of a completely paperless case trial simulation.

In terms of IJS business intelligence, 26 out of the 28 KPIs were being answered and were active leading up to the end of the 2020/2021 financial year. In 2015, South Africa was designated as a country which had to focus specifically on dealing with femicide. This included the development of a dashboard which could support the analysis of trends and profiles of offenders and victims, and was capable of using IJS data sourced from multiple entities. The dashboard was expected to assist in the development of responsive and impactful policies, law, programmes, and initiatives in this critical area.

Strategic intervention

An IJS and State Information Technology Agency (SITA) war-room will be established to fast-track the procurement of items. The IJS new governance framework will be implemented. An ICT Courts Stakeholder Liaison Forum had been established, which would be the testing a reporting ground for the interventions at the pilot sites. Project plans would provide for tight timeframes with regular validation and rollout to other priority areas.

Discussion

Mr W Horn (DA) said that it was strange that something as basic as speed points was seen as a breakthrough in terms of modernisation of court administration. It seemed like the DoJ&CD had finally entered the new millennium. He took note of fact that issues of bandwidth and ICT infrastructure were constantly put forward as a reason for the fact that the systems were not fully functional at the moment. He asked why those issues were always at the forefront of any obstacles to a given strategy. What was the plan to fix those recurring issues? Everyone had learnt, since the start of the pandemic, that if one is forced to work on improving one’s own ICT structure, it could be done, in spite of budgetary restraints. What was the DoJ&CD’s masterplan to conclusively deal with these issues?

He said that it was a relief that there was some progress in terms of the IJS Project. However, for the Committee to have a proper oversight of how effective the system currently was, it was not good enough to be told that 72% of all SAPS stations were linked. The Committee had to ask for a breakdown of how constant and continuous this link had been to the system in the past three months. For these SAPS stations, what percentage of their dockets was uploaded timeously to the system?

For the 2.75 m cumulative cases that were electronically processed, the Committee needed a breakdown of this number of cases over the last few years, to see how many of the total cases in the courts were being dealt with through the system. The DoJ&CD had to give the Committee a breakdown of how it saw the progression and what the final target date was for full implementation of the systems.

He asked how much of a disruptive effect working in silos had in terms of the overall project plan, and to what extent had the initiative taken by the Office of the Chief Justice (OCJ) been conceptualised, taking into account the work already done by the DoJ&CD. Was it the now a case of the OCJ embarking on its own process and the DoJ&CD having to be the lead on the IJS Project and reacting to the initiatives developed by the OCJ?

Adv Breytenbach noted that the whole IJS Project has been plagued by delays for the past two decades. She was worried that the IJS Project was being moved into the 20th century while the rest of the world was already in the 21st century. It was concerning that there were certain courts that had to be closed down on account of them being derelict, and due to the hazardous nature of their infrastructure. And nothing was done to resolve these problems. This was unacceptable. She asked how this could have happened.

She asked if the single person identifier had been implemented across the justice system. If it had, could an example of its successful implementation be given? What was the current status of the inter-departmental exchange process, and was progress being made in this regard? Had a single datastore for the JCPS Cluster been established? If not, why was that the case? Had the IJS been adapted to keep up with the current modernisation of the courts, such as case lines?

She said that the NPA had identified the various risks and problem areas, including the lack of integrated electronic case management and the lack of laptops and network connectivity. Had these problem areas been addressed, and if so, how? How many desktops and laptops were meant to be replaced? Why were prosecutors being given desktops in the first place? The governance framework was supposed to have been approved by March 2021, but the DoJ&CD now stated that it would only be in full operation by the end of March 2024. What were the reasons for this delay? This had been delayed since 1997. The justice system had been regressing for the past 24 years. How was that possible?

She asked if the Integrated Justice Board was comprised and what its role was. When would the seven-point plan be implemented? What happened to the Integrated Task Team on Criminal Justice Reform? Did it still exist, and if so, why was the Committee not informed of any of its activities? Why had the Committee not received a copy of the IJS report that was due in 2018? If that report existed, could the Committee receive a copy? How many cases had been successfully finalised in terms of the Femicide Watch dashboard? 

Dr Newhoudt-Druchen wanted clarity on the completion of the various projects in terms of the Modernisation Programme, as the roadmap was unclear. In terms of the IJS transversal hub, what was currently being tested with the DCS? She had been made aware of complaints about the release of a convicted person on parole without the SAPS notifying the community and the victim of the release. The SAPS placed the responsibility on the DCS to inform the community of this action. However, the public does not have access to the DCS, and could not go to court to demand why the release was made without notification. With the IJS, the SAPS would know that the person was released and then be able to notify the victim and/or community of this. So, the SAPS should be part of that system, but the presentation did not make it clear whether, or to what extent, SAPS was involved in this process. She asked what was being tested with the DCS, and how this testing was being done.

Mr Q Dyantyi (ANC) said that what the DoJ&CD had presented was not the progress of the Modernisation Programme, but rather its plan. Nothing had started, and the majority of the pilots were being implemented in Pretoria. He suggested that the Committee have another meeting with the DoJ&CD to be briefed on the actual progress of the Modernisation Programme later in the year.

In his view, it seemed like there was a culture issue. The risk mitigation being implemented could not be an idea. It had to be a part of the culture in the DoJ&CD. Anything that was being planned, that had to do with public resources, had to include risk mitigation measures. It could not be an afterthought. He asked if the prioritisation of Gauteng, KwaZulu-Natal, and the Western Cape was in line with reality, as the real demand and challenges regarding the courts were in other provinces. The potential unintended consequences of this prioritisation were worrying.

He noted that we submitted information to the Magistrates’ Commission, that he was part of, which did not have Wi-fi. The DoJ&CD had to give more clarity on when actual work would be done on these issues. The Committee had to receive an annual report from the DoJ&CD on the IJS Project. It was not received in 2020, so it had to be received this year.
 
Ms N Maseko-Jele (ANC) noted that many of the issues being raised were longstanding problems, which the Committee had enquired about when they initially arose. She asked how much of the progress presented covered the issues addressed in the seven-point plan. She emphasised that the DoJ&CD had to treat the courts in rural areas as the point of departure for their prioritisation, as the courts in Pretoria were already much better developed than elsewhere in the country. The Committee had to receive reports from the various departments and entities involved in the IJS Project which the DoJ&CD was currently presenting on in order to see the true reflection of the progress being made.

Adv Swart asked for more details about the co-operation between the SAPS, the NPA, the courts, and the DoJ&CD in terms of the Modernisation Programme, particular with regard to the link between their IT systems. He was under the impression that the online masters and deceased estate portals were in existence and were operative for years. He asked for more clarity on whether the portal referred to in the presentation were merely improvements or were they pilot projects. If they were pilot projects, it was very concerning. Budgetary constraints had to be acknowledged, but work had to be done to fast-track and improve online court processes.

Adv Breytenbach stated that the report she referred to was the Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation (DPME) IJS Report.

The Chairperson asked if the IJS Project formed part of the performance agreement between Minister Lamola and the President.

On the last question, Deputy Minister Jeffery replied that he was unsure, but that Adv Mashabane may be able to respond to it. He added that he had been raising issues with the DoJ&CD regarding the failure to meet certain commitments on the implementation of the Modernisation Programme.

The Chairperson asked if there was any political champion for the IJS Project.

Deputy Minister Jeffery said he was not the political champion for the IJS Project, but that Adv Mashabane would be able to reply with more certainty.

The Chairperson noted that when the IJS Project first began in 1997 there was a partnership with the Business Against Crime unit. He asked if that partnership still existed.

Adv Mashabane said that during his term the DoJ&CD had not had regular interaction with the Business Against Crime unit. He noted that the IJS Project had had some challenges, particularly in terms of staffing. This had essentially been managed via contracts within the DoJ&CD. He would take the consideration of reigniting the partnership with the Business Against Crime unit on board to better implement the IJS Project. The IJS Project formed part of the performance agreement between the President and Minister Lamola. Minister Lamola was the political champion for the IJS Project. The reforming of the governance structure indicated as much. The purpose of the restructuring was to ensure better executive oversight of the accounting officers to manage the operations of the entire justice system chain more effectively.

The Chairperson asked how many of the project managers of the IJS Project had project management backgrounds.

Adv Mashabane said that the DoJ&CD had had a major challenge in that the IJS Project was previously managed by independent contractors. A structure had just been finalised to ensure that project management was based within the DoJ&CD. It was hoped that the head of the IJS Project would be appointed by the end of August, for a period of five years. The review done indicated that project management and skill was a critical requirement, hence, the person who would be appointed would be sufficiently qualified. As would those people appointed to assist in managing the IJS Project.

The Chairperson asked how much money had been spent on external contractors to manage the IJS Project.

Adv Mashabane said that he would get the figures and respond later in the meeting. He noted that it would be a lot of money, as the IJS Project had been managed by various contractors, and was also managed by the SAPS at one point in the past 24 years. A part of the IJS Project still remained with the SAPS.

The Chairperson noted that reports indicated that approximately R2 bn was spent on the IJS Project. He asked Adv Mashabane if he thought whether the state had received value for money in paying these contractors.

Adv Mashabane said that he was not convinced that there was value for money.

Mr Katz agreed that the DoJ&CD was only now moving into the 20th century. He stated that change took time, and thus the little progress ought to be appreciated. The changes were more complex than merely moving from a paper-based system to an online one. The pandemic had forced the DoJ&CD to think differently and accelerate transformation. He believed that before modernising, the DoJ&CD first had to stabilise its operations. That initial step could not be skipped. This was why most of the focus was currently to stabilise the environment to ensure that the Modernisation Programme would run smoothly.

The Chairperson said that the response from Mr Katz was unacceptable, as that stabilisation should have occurred years ago.

Mr Katz apologised if his response insulted the Members. The DoJ&CD had been making a concerted effort to resolve the many issues, with the upgrading of the ICT infrastructure having been started in the previous financial year. There was a need to plan for the future whilst managing the current processes. The speed points were the first step, and it depended on the DoJ&CD having an efficient and operative infrastructure to be properly implemented.

On the laptops and desktops issue, this was a rolling target, with the DoJ&CD having replaced 3 000 laptops in the previous financial year and 4 000 in the current financial year. The planned target was to replace 16 000 laptops and desktops. The 4 000 desktops which were replaced in the current financial year were required as there were set areas, such as the pay points, which could only use desktops. The biggest driver for this target was cost effectiveness, with desktops cheaper. Further, desktops had more processing power, which was useful to deal with the heavy electronic workload.

On the Modernisation Programme roadmap, he clarified that some of the projects had completed development, with some in testing. The green circles indicated that the particular aspect was finalised, while the orange circles indicated that they were ongoing. On risk mitigation, the DoJ&CD was constantly looking at the potential risks and ways to address them. More detail would be provided on this when the DoJ&CD next met with the Committee.

He said that more clarity would be provided on the Masters and deceased estates online portals. The Masters online portal had been in operation for a long time, with the only difference in this project being that the portal would allow for more than merely searching for trusts and estates, and seek to enable the public to complete aspects relevant for transactions, such as attaching documents and capture their registration details. Further, they would be able to submit their requests for approval of the application through the Integrated Case Management System (ICMS), and then processed by the Masters Office.

Mr Nicholas Munyai, Head: IJS, DoJ&CD, said that the 72% of the cases referred to in the presentation pertained to the utilisation of the PIVA services by the SAPS. The case management system had developed across the justice system chain. A monthly breakdown could be provided in the relevant report. The SAPS was finalising the enhancement of their docket system. The progress delays were acknowledged. There were several reviews of the IJS, which recommended a restructuring of the governance framework. The various findings made by the DPME were being responded to.

The previous IJS Board was now the IJS Implementation Committee, which reported to the Board of Director-Generals. One of the issues was that member entities were not reporting to the IJS Implementation Committee, but rather to their respective structures, and this unified structure would assist greatly. The IJS, SITA, and the SAPS were deploying a project, namely the integrated person management project, with the single person identifier constituting one of the deliverables of that project. That was supposed to have been started in 2013. The IJS Implementation Committee resolved to provide laptops and desktops to prosecutors to improve their ability to deal with their caseload, but it was now apparent that there was low usage of the Electronic Case Management System (ECMS) by the prosecutors. This was an agenda point for the IJS Implementation Committee, with much intervention required on this matter.

On the connectivity issues, the IJS Implementation Committee had been engaging with entities to deal with these challenges and ease reliance on SITA. The NPA also complained that the capturing of the dockets by the SAPS would not be completed properly, with ten police stations identified as having management and training issues in this regard. The IJS was working with the SAPS to deal with this problem.  The DCS was connected, with some business processes being finalised. The DCS provided data through the IJS for business intelligence purposes.

On the IJS Project piloted in the OCJ, the Supreme Court of Appeal and other high courts determined that it was necessary for them to also use the case line. However, the case line was the second part of the end-to-end system, and the first part was the case management system itself. This first part had been completed, with user acceptance testing being done. The pilot for this was planned for September.

The Business Against Crime unit was part of the IJS transversal hub, but due to contractual issues, the unit opted out in 2019. However, the unit could still be brought on board. A lot of focus was now on the integrated person management system. The DPME report could be provided to the Members. The 13 recommendations were being implemented.

Adv Skosana said that there was engagement between the DoJ&CD and the OCJ. A broad framework was being implemented to improve maintenance and court infrastructure. The IJS Project constituted two of the components of the seven-point plan. Although the plan was very ambitious, it was not accompanied by any strategic plan on monitoring and evaluation. Hence, the plan started running in isolation, with lots of money lost through corruption. It was only agreed in 2018 that the Integrated Criminal Justice System (ICJS) would implement a strategy to put all of the plans in place. An evaluation would be conducted to determine how much progress had been made in terms of the seven-point plan. That assessment had to be independently.

Based on the outcome of that assessment, the DoJ&CD would be able to focus on the areas that still need engagement and work. The second arm of the ICJS sought to transform the Criminal Procedure Act. The prioritisation of Gauteng, KwaZulu-Natal, and the Western Cape would not remove focus from the other provinces, rather it would improve the use of lessons from the challenges seen in those three provinces in the other six provinces. Within the ICJS, there was great co-operation between the SAPS, the NPA, the courts, and the DoJ&CD. It would be useful for there to be an integrated report presented to the Committee so that Members could have proper oversight.

Adv Mashabane said that the derelict court referred to by Adv Breytenbach was almost back to operational capacity, with some small maintenance matters being finalised. He confirmed that there were serious challenges in the courts, particularly with their built infrastructure. He had made a request for an increase in his DoJ&CD financial delegation to R500 000. This would be used for maintenance, and would provide an improvement on his current delegation of R100 000. If he and the Director-General of the Department of Public Works and Infrastructure (DPWI) were unable to come to an agreement, the matter would be elevated to the political level. A proposal was being worked on to be presented to Cabinet in this regard.

He said that over R7 bn had been spent on the IJS Project. At least 75% of that money would have gone to the contractors.

Closing remarks

The Chairperson thanked Adv Mashabane for the information. He said the progress was atrocious, and was not what should be expected in 24 years. The people who should be receiving these services cannot wait much longer for progress to be made. Using the 80-20 principle, the IJS Project, if fully implemented, could achieve more than 80% of what was sought to be done in the criminal justice system. The failure to implement it would result in the implementation of any other project or initiative to only effect 20% of the change needed.

He said that it was irritating to hear only about plans. Adv Mashabane had to reflect honestly on whether he had a department which had people who would take the system forward and implement plans properly. The Committee needed the various requested reports in order to plan an oversight visit next term. The vision of the DoJ&CD had to be transformed into delivery of those strategies. He asked whether the DoJ&CD was fit for purpose. Constant, actual, progress reports had to be given to the Committee to ensure that the strategies did not stagnate.

Those who could not do what was required of them to effect progress and transformation had to be removed from the DoJ&CD. If Adv Mashabane was not the one to take this strict line of management, then Minister Lamola would have to be engaged to do so.

He thanked the DoJ&CD for presenting and responding to questions. He noted that the Committee would deal with the briefing by the DoJ&CD on the Hate Crimes Bill - after the decision of the Constitutional Court – the following day, as well as the issues regarding the Master’s Office.

The meeting was adjourned.