Office of the Chief Justice 2020/21 Quarter 2 & 3 performance

This premium content has been made freely available

Justice and Correctional Services

24 February 2021
Chairperson: Mr G Magwanishe (ANC)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

The Committee convened on a virtual platform to be briefed by the Office of the Chief Justice (OCJ) on its performance and budgets for quarters two and three of the 2020/21 financial year.

In terms of non-financial performance during quarter two, the Office had 21 planned targets, of which 15 were achieved and six were not achieved. This translated to the Department achieving 71% of its targets and 29% not being achieved. For quarter three, the Office has 18 planned targets, of which 13 were achieved and five were not achieved. This translated to the Department achieving 72% of its targets and 28% not being achieved.

The Committee commended the report given, thanking the Secretary-General (SG) and her team for taking concerns raised by the Committee seriously and asking a number of questions regarding amongst other things: concerns about the Information Communication Technology (ICT) security breach and the related delay in implementing the court online system.

Members asked for the reasons for under-spending as well as the reason for transfers of OCJ employees. They expressed concern about the vacancy rates and asked what innovations were being implemented to target the youth, and women and unemployment generally. Concerns about the reduction in judge travel costs and what was being done to service circuit courts in areas where travel restrictions were imposed were raised.

Figures around the cases of concluded grievances were requested to be more specific and information around the suspensions and efficacy of suspension procedure was asked. The OCJ addressed all the questions, undertaking to provide further details on the last two aforementioned points where it did not have the answers on hand.

Meeting report

Introductory remarks by the Chairperson

The Chairperson opened the virtual meeting and greeted all present, saying that the Committee would be receiving a briefing from the Office of the Chief Justice (OCJ) on its second and third quarter reports. He handed over to the OCJ Secretary-General (SG) for the briefing.

 

Briefing by the Office of the Chief Justice on second and third quarter reports

Ms Memme Sejosengwe, OCJ SG, introducing her team, which included: the Chief Financial Officer (CFO), the two Deputy Director-Generals (DDGs) responsible for Corporate Services and Court Administration; the Chief Director for Court Administration; the Spokesperson of the Judiciary; the Chief Director for Strategy, Planning, Monitoring and Reporting; the Acting Chief Director for Human Resource Management; the Chief Audit Executive, a Director in the parliamentary office in the office of the SG and the Chief Financial Officer (CEO) of South African Judicial Education Institute (SAJEI).

Before the SG continued, the Chairperson interjected and thanked the SG for the role she played in ensuring that the Committee finally has a meeting with the Judiciary. He knew that she played a very critical role to facilitate and assist the Committee in facilitating the meeting. He thanked her for her assistance.

The SG thanked the Chairperson and continued to reiterate that the presentation as already indicated is on the performance of the OCJ for quarters two and three of the 2020/21 financial year. The Head of Monitoring, Evaluation and Reporting, Mr Malao, will present, after which the OCJ would field questions as a team.

Performance of the Office of the Chief Justice (OCJ) Q2 and Q3 2020/21 financial year
Mr Itumeleng Malao, Chief Director: Monitoring and Evaluation and Reporting, OCJ, began by explaining that the performance he would focus on the performance of the OCJ during the second and third quarters of the 2020/21 financial year. He presented the outline as at slide two of the presentation.

The Chairperson asked if the presenter could skip the parts of the presentation on mandate and vision and move to areas discussing performance information, as the other sections generally do not change.

Quarter Two Non-Financial Performance

The OCJ had 21 planned targets, of which 15 were achieved and six were not achieved. This translated to the Department achieving 71% of its targets and 29% not being achieved.

Programme three: Judicial Education and Support, achieved 75%, or three out of four targets.

In total, the targets amounted to 21 targets, 15 of which were achieved. Over all target achievement for the quarter: 71%

Programme one: Administration

Overall, the programme achieved 55% or six out of its 11 targets. The targets achieved per sub-programme are detailed on slide 21 under the following sub-programmes:

- Management

- Corporate Services

- Internal Audit

- Financial Administration

- Office Accommodation

- COVID-19, which it added as an additional sub-programme.

Targets not achieved (slides 22 to 26)

Mr Malao requested that he only go through the targets not achieved for the programme, the reasons for not achieving them and the corrective measures are detailed on the slides for the following indicators:

- The percentage of women in Senior Management Service (SMS). The annual target was 50%, the quarterly target was 45% and it only managed to achieve 44%.

- Percentage of people with disabilities.

- Number of COVID-19 Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) inspections conducted at the OCJ

- Number of COVID-19 educational programmes implemented at OCJ

- Number of COVID-19- related training conducted for safety officers.

Programme two: Superior Court Services

This programme achieved all six of its planned targets.

Programme three: Judicial Education and Support

The only indicator that was not achieved for this programme was: the number of research monographs on judicial education produced per year, as at slide 33. Otherwise, 75% of the targets were achieved.

The reasons for non-achievement were the cancellation of face-to-face interviews and the corrective measure being the use of online data collection platforms.

Quarter Three Non-Financial Performance

The OCJ has 18 planned targets, of which 13 were achieved and five were not achieved. This translated to the Department achieving 72% of its targets and 28% not being achieved.

Overall performance per programme

Programme one: Administration achieved 62,5% or five out of its eight targets.

Programme two: Superior Court Services achieved 100% of all six of its targets.

Programme three: Judicial Education and Support achieved 50%, or two out of four targets.

Overall 72% of targets were achieved.

Programme one: Administration

The targets achieved per sub-programme are detailed on slide 41 under the following sub-programmes:

- Management

- Corporate Services

- Internal Audit

- Financial Administration

- Office Accommodation

- COVID-19

The targets not achieved for the programme, the reasons for not achieving them and the corrective measures are detailed on the slides for the following indicators:

- Number of Employee Health and Wellness awareness sessions conducted

- Court online system implemented at service centres

- Number of COVID-19 related training for safety officers.

 

Programme two: Superior Court Services

This programme achieved all six of its planned targets.

Programme three: Judicial Education and Support

      Moving to slide 52, the targets not achieved for the programme, the reasons for not achieving them and the corrective measures are detailed on the slides for the following indicators:

      - Number of judicial education courses conducted, this was not achieved as some courses were postponed to quarter four. The OCJ was still on track to achieve this target by the end of the financial year.

      - Percentage of planned judicial education courses conducted through virtual platforms.

     He then handed over to the CFO to take the Committee through the budget.

Budget presentation for Quarter Two

Mr Casper Coetzer, CFO, OCJ, said that with the Committee's indulgence, he would not deal with the individual figures as presented and circulated to the Members. He would rather select certain slides to speak to and make general comments as to the reasons for under-spending of the budget. He started with slide 57.

For quarter two, the OCJ spent 85% of its planned budget. It spent 76% of its voted funds projected expenditure and 94% of its projected expenditure on direct charges, mainly spent on judges’ salaries and gratuities. In general, for quarter two, the OCJ under-spent 15% and he would deal with the reasons for the under-spending after completing the quarter three comparative figures.

Budget presentation for Quarter Three

Moving to slide 63, the CFO noted that for quarter three, ending on 31 December, the OCJ was slightly higher as it spent 87 % of its planned budget. It spent 88% of its voted funds planned expenditure and 86% of its projected expenditure on direct charges for judges salaries and gratuities.

Reasons for under-spending

The presentation deals with the reasons for under-spending in each quarter. However, he wanted to summarise the reasons for both quarters two and three as they are mainly the same.

Compensation of employees (COE)

On this item, under-spending is mostly as a result of the implementation of the pay progressions, which were to be implemented in December, but the OCJ only implemented them now in quarter four.

 

Main reason for under-spending

The main reason for under-spending, however, is that the government did not approve any cost-of-living increases, whilst this was provided and planned for in the budget.

 

Under-spending in the capital environment

The main reasons for under-spending in this environment are delays in the awarding or finalisation of tenders in its information, communication technology (ICT) environment. The two reasons for this are that during the first quarter's National Lockdown Alert Level one, which meant that almost no administrative activities happened around tenders. During quarter two, the move to level four meant that it could start with tender procedures. This delayed the awarding of tenders, which it initially had planned to do in quarters two and three.

Staff training

Staff training, which the OCJ intended to be conducted in quarters three and four, could not be conducted due to the lockdown restrictions.

 

Payment for fleet services

This item is one where the OCJ pays mainly for the operational costs of judges vehicles; because of lockdown restrictions, working from home and virtual courts, judges travelled much less than normal, resulting in understanding on fleet services.

 

Reduction in stationary procurement

As officials and judges worked from home, there was under-spending on this item.

 

Travel and subsistence

There was also major under-spending on this item, which is the main cost-driver in the OCJ, under the goods and services classification. Underspending related to lockdown restrictions and the conversion to virtual platforms and the restrictions on travel.

 

Transcription and translation services

There was also underspending in the need for the payment of transcription and translation services in courts, due to there being fewer cases. Therefore, in general, these were the main reasons for under-spending. In is projections for quarter four, the OCJ will have another increase in spending levels an it will attempt to spend at least 90% of the budget by the end of quarter four.

 

He thanked the Committee.
 

Mr Malao said he was going to move straight to Part D.

Part D: Personnel Information for quarters two and three

Quarter Two Overview of personnel related matters

At the end of quarter two, the post establishment reflected 2 148 approved posts, of which 1 931 were filled and 196 were vacant and funded. At the end of the quarter, the vacancy rate was 9.1% against a target of 10% or lower. As at 30 September 2020, 64% of employees were females and 36% were males and 44% of SMS members were female whilst 56% were male.

The OCJ had 614 youth (aged between 21 and 35), which amounts to 31%, exceeding the national target of 30%. The total staff turnover was 70%, some of whom went to work at other departments and is detailed on the last point on slide 69.

People with disabilities (as at 30 September 2020)

The OCJ met one percent (1%) of its two percent (2%) target with 20 employees in this category.

 

Employee relations (as at 30 September 2020)

There were 17 disputes, 16 of which were pending and one finalised; 25 misconduct cases, 24 of which were pending and one finalised; 49 grievances, of which nine were finalised.


Quarter Three Overview of personnel related matters

At the end of quarter three, the post establishment reflected 2 148 approved posts, of which 1 952 were filled and 217 were vacant and funded. At the end of the quarter, the vacancy rate was 10.2% against a target of 10% or lower. The rise in percentage was mainly due to a higher number of terminations.

At 31 December 2020, 63% of employees were females and 32% were males and 44% of SMS members were female whilst 56% were male.

The OCJ had 618 youth, which amounts to 31%, exceeding the national target.

The total staff turnover is detailed on the last point on slide 72.

People with disabilities (as at 31 December 2020)

The OCJ met one percent (1%) of its two percent (2%) target with 20 employees in this category.

Employee relations (as at 31 December 2020)


There were 17 disputes, 16 of which were pending and one finalised; 24 misconduct cases, 16 of which were pending and seven finalised and one closed as the alleged offender passed away; 28 grievances of which seven are bending, 20 were finalised; and one closed as the aggrieved employee passed away.

This brought the presentation to an end.

Discussion

Mr W Horn (DA) greeted all present, including the OCJ delegation. He had two issues to point out: the failure to implement the court online system and the reason given being ICT breach. He asked whether the issues around the breach have been resolved and whether there has been an investigation into it. To what extent has it impacted on the delivery of services by the OCJ and to what extent has it exposed the personal information of judicial officers that might be on the OCJ system? Secondly, in respect of employee relations, he asked how many staff members have been suspended pending investigation. For those suspended, he asked for what period they would be suspended, as it would help the Committee understand the efficiency with which the OCJ deals with labour matters.

 

Ms N Maseko-Jele (ANC) apologised for not being able to switch on her video, saying that she had network connection issues and was not disrespecting the House. She thanked the OCJ and its leadership for making time to come and present to the Committee.

 

She welcomed the underspending by judges. She did not know if she spoke out of turn, but she though the savings could be used elsewhere. She asked the Department to take cognisance of the issue of women, particularly those over the age of 35. Many programmes focus on women from ages 18-35 and those from 36 and above are not catered to.

 

Her main issue was COVID, particularly on not achieving the OHS inspection. Even though it is not a big problem in the head office, she thought the regions that need to improve really needed to as the Committee takes COVID-19 very seriously. The way the presenter spoke sounded to her as if the OCJ spoke of a future action, but needed to prioritise. Consequence management needs to be applied on this matter as the OCJ and the Committee cannot tolerate COVID-19 issues being taking lightly.

 

Lastly, on the issue of personnel in part D of the presentations, she saw programmes in other departments, such as the Department of Education, recently, where the Department hired youth to assist teachers wherever they can. The programme, however, is mainly aimed at reducing unemployment amongst the youth. Therefore, she asked what the Department is doing about young graduates from the university by involving them in some programmes and reducing backlogs.

Adv G Breytenbach (DA) said that Mr Horn and Ms Maseko-Jele covered her in their comments.

Ms W Newhoudt-Druchen (ANC) thanked the presenters and referred to slide 70, concerning the 49 grievances with nine finalised. However, on slide 43, it says 28 cases of grievances. She asked if this meant that between quarter two and quarter three, the Department reduced the cases by the balance of 40 and 28. She assumed that since it still had 40 cases not finalised in quarter two, that the OCJ would still base the calculation on that in quarter three.

On audio-visual services in the courts during lockdown, she asked what kinds of challenges the courts faced. Some Members face network problems even during these meetings and she wanted to know what kind of challenges the courts faced when using the audio-visual systems and what methods were used to overcome the challenges.

Ms J Mofokeng (ANC) first noted that the matter of the court online system was important to them all as mentioned my Mr Horn, Adv. Breytenbach and Ms Maseko-Jele. Linked to this, she asked for an update on the transfer of functions from the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development (DoJ&CD) to the OCJ, especially on infrastructure.

Further, she asked how much the OCJ spent on COVID-19 interventions, and lastly, on the youth that will be used in the Caselines or whatever project that was piloted in Gauteng, she asked if the OCJ had started and how it was going.

Mr X Nqola (ANC) on the programmes that are funded. He thought that the OCJ may not be sure about what the vacancy rate is as it says ‘10% or lower’, having been funded but not occupied or filled. He asked why these funded posts were not filled as no reason was given in the presentation. There is specific mention of women senior management, which is at 50%; however, there is no mention of women amongst the figures for disabled people and amongst the youth. He asked that this be born in mind when reporting.

The Chairperson thanked the Members for their inputs and said he had two issues; one that was raised by Ms Maseko-Jele. He asked if there was a way to separate expenditure from savings. Using the Committee as an example, so far, it had met its targets overall. However, it had made a number of savings on food and travel. The OCJs rules may not allow such a distinction, but he thought it should be borne in mind.

Secondly, he was interested in the issue of transfer of staff to other departments. He asked what necessitated the transfer and from which departments these staff members are being transferred along with any reasons for such transfers.

Lastly, he sought clarity the issue of the 10%. He wanted to observe and comment from a different angle. He knew that the public service target was to try not to be above 10% vacancy rate. Given the fact that there is a crisis of unemployment and the fact that most of the people who have lost their jobs are highly skilled people; he did not think the Committee should accept a vacancy rate of 10%. He handed over to the delegates for their responses.

Responses

 

ICT and security breach

The investigation is still happened and is not yet concluded. Because of this there is yet to be a determination as to whether any personal information was accessed, although it is quite unlikely given the path it has traversed in the investigation so far. The breach has been resolved and the systems are operational meaning that which went wrong in its system, networks and software has been resolved and restored it to ensure that the system is operational. It has also ensured that security aspects and information is attended to in terms of malware protections that have been implemented throughout the entire system, both at the national office and wherever the system runs.

 

Network administration

The OCJ has provided courts the necessary licences and laptops needed to operate courts virtually.

The SG asked the CFO to speak to the difference between under-spending and savings.

COVID-19 spending

The CFO said that he would go through the list of questions pertaining to the budget. COVID-19 spending in the OCJ, as at the end of January, was R2.416 million. It is not a big spender insofar as COVID-19 is concerned, as main cost drivers would be personal protective equipment (PPE), sanitisers and temperature screening.

 

Under spending and savings

National Treasury rules state that each department has to project monthly expenditure that then accumulate through the year and by the end of the year, needs to meet 100% of the allocated budget. If departments do not spend in accordance with the projected expenditure, Treasury classifies this as under-spending, which he agreed, sounded negative. Savings would be when a department, during a financial year, makes a deliberate decision to implement savings on a particular cost item and then at the end of the year, to return that money to Treasury. ‘Savings’ is therefore money that one does not plan to spend anymore and the department makes a decision to return it to Treasury. Under spending is then when a department intends to spend money by a certain date and it did not, it sometimes then reprioritises these funds to meet other things. Under-spending in the situation that the OCJ is currently in, means it is trying to re-prioritise the funds and channel it to other areas and priorities that it did not initially plan for due to COVID-19. For example, it used under-spending to enable virtual courts by procuring more Microsoft Teams licences, which it did not plan for COVID-19. It also had to increase the cost of data lines and bandwidth, which it similarly, did not plan for in order to support the courts' virtual functioning. This is where the OCJ then used under-spending through fund-shifts of virements, to channel money to fund other priorities. He hoped this answered the question. Under spending is a term used where it planned to use the money by a certain date and it did not.

 

Judges travel savings

The under-expenditure on this item could generally be seen as a good thing. However, in this context of the OCJ, it is not a good thing as judges mainly travel when they attend to circuit courts in order ensure access to justice. Hence in this case, it is not good because it means there are those areas where people are not accessing justice.

The SG asked the court administration manager to deal with the court online and court-related questions.

Court online

Mr Nathi Mncube, Chief Director: Court Administration, OCJ, thanked the SG and Committee. The malware breach that happened last year caused delays insofar as the court online project is concerned. The targets set for the quarter could not be achieved and as a result, they were revised for implementation in the next financial year. When the malware happened, the service provider could not build the solution, as it had to wait for a period and after the period, it then needed assurances from the OCJ that the environment was now safe for them to come and build the solution. This took time. However, the build has begun and should be concluded before the end of the second quarter. In the main, court online could not happen for circuit courts, as they are criminal courts, which need witnesses. However, the system exists in all superior courts. The involvement of youth in this project has not yet been catered to as there are currently no officials that have been appointed specifically for this programme, but as and when this happens, the youth will be considered.

 

Transfer of infrastructure functions

The SG said that there had not been any transfer beyond what had already transferred in its last discussion and report to the Committee, either on infrastructure as a retained function, or on any other functions still retained. This is a policy decision taken at a higher level and has implications on resources when the transfers take place. The answer is therefore, that the DoJ&CD and Department of Public Works and Infrastructure (DPWI) are still responsible for infrastructure.

 

Women

The women are not available at present relating to youth and disabled staff. The OCJ is currently at 44% in prioritising women in the Department. It is currently a priority in the executive committee.

 

Unemployment plan for the youth

The OCJ has internships which target the youth as well as workplace integrated learning. Internships have been being granted for three to four years where it has brought in youth in order to gain experiential learning in the OCJ environment. With effect from 01 April, it will be having an intake of 85 into its institution. The second programme on workplace integrated learning is a programme that targets graduates who it places in its environment so that they get relevant experience relating to their trade or relating to their degrees. This programme has been developed and it will be looking at the financials to decide how many it is able to recruit come 01 April 2021. These are the two programmes catering to youth.

OHS inspections

All planned inspections have now been conducted. In quarter two, the inspections were conducted but the reports were not submitted as the OCJ takes this very seriously.

Transfers of OCJ staff to other departments.

Ms Cindy Mazibuko, Chief Director: Human Resources (HR), OCJ, explained that these are not staff members who are transferred by the OCJ to other departments. Rather, this is the terminology used for officials who apply for other posts, be it promotional or lateral transfer posts to other departments. When these staff members leave the OCJ without resigning, they are captured as transfers and not as resignations. Therefore, the OCJ is not making these transfers, and they refer to those seeking greener pastures in other departments.

 

Vacancy rate

The 10% represents the target that has been set by the Department of Public Service and Administration (DPSA). The OCJ aims to be below 10% all the time. In the report provided by the end of quarter three, it was at 10.1 %, which was slightly over the 10%. She could indicate that it was currently at 9.9% in terms of the vacancy rate. There are a number of advertisements and it hopes to reduce the vacancy rate down to five percent by the end of the financial year.

 

Grievances

The OCJ said that nine were finalised. However, 21 were finalised, simply not within 30 days, hence the 28 on slide 73. In the future it would include totals including those not concluded within the 30-day period.

 

Employee relations and suspensions

On the question of how many staff members were on suspensions and the period of those suspensions, the SG said that this detail was not included in the presentation and asked to provide the information to the Committee, along with the reasons, at another stage.

Budget cuts and COE budgets

The SG noted the Chairperson's concerns about the 10% in light of the economic situation being faced by the country. However, she felt that the chief director on human resources had already indicated one of the constraints being budget cuts, which then affect the COE budgets. Treasury has also imposed ceilings on the COE budgets. But the SG noted the issue, because the situation is dire and the OCJ would try to see how it could work around the issue.

The Chairperson asked if there were follow-up questions.

Follow-up questions

Ms Maseko-Jele said that she wanted to follow-up on the response given about how not traveling judges travel was not much of a saving. She agreed with the explanation given. However, her follow-up question was what the OCJ was doing to serve the areas when judges cannot travel.

The Chairperson said that without speaking for the judiciary, his understanding is that the dates for sitting of those circuit courts dealing with criminal matters were rescheduled. However, this was dealt with by the DOJ&CD.

The Chairperson thanked the OCJ for the record on both quarters. He thought the OCJ had done well under the circumstances. It always encouraged him that the OCJ takes the comments made by the Committee seriously and that the OCJ always endeavours to ensure that issues raised by the Committee are responded to continuously. As a result, the Committee always sees issues raised in the follow-up reports that come before it. This pleased the Committee and it is something that it raised with the Judiciary. The Circuit courts is something that the Committee would refer to the DoJ&CD. He felt that, in terms of infrastructure, rules and legislations, the OCJ needed to be able to take forward what it has learnt thus far as he thought the era of pandemics would be with the country for a long time. The country may not always be affected, but it needs to have takeaways from its current experiences and ensure that the criminal justice system, for instance, does not collapse. Because of the levels of production in a capitalist environment, all the branches of government should be aware that the issue of pandemics is going to be part of its reality and it should start planning accordingly.

He thanked the SG and her team, saying that the Committee would always hold the OCJ to higher standards because from the OCJ on, all other departments within the Committee's purview should be able to look up to the OCJ to see how service delivery and good governance are done and the correct management of resources. When the Committee is hard on the OCJ, it is because of this expectation as it is the department responsible for the courts. For example, the Committee would find it unthinkable for the OCJ to have a disclaimer or an unqualified audit. This applies to all departments. A clean audit should be a minimum and there should not be a reason to praise departments for a clean audit. The issue of proper governance systems needed to be emphasised. Governance systems and accounting for financial resources are one aspect, but it becomes an ideal in what it should strive for when there is a correlation between clean governance, administration that is accountable as well as the service delivery on the ground. Once this correlation exists, then the Committee would be able to say that it is properly meeting its mandate.

He thanked the OCJ and said the Committee would meet again soon as in the next term; the Committee would be dealing with budgets. Lastly, on the issue raised by the CFO, he asked that where it is able to make savings, he thought it was important to prioritise security in courts as well as wellness programmes for judges – especially for judges who deal with criminal cases every day. He felt that this should be considered more and the Committee would try and assist the OCJ, as it cannot allow the justice system to collapse.

The SG thanked the Committee for its time.

The Chairperson excused the OCJ and said that the Committee would continue and resume at 11:00.

Programme considerations

Later today, the programme stipulated that the Committee would be dealing with the Sexual Offences and Related Matters Amendment Bill. Its programme was meant to say the Criminal and Related Matters Amendment Bill, which had been presented by Mr Robbertse and deliberated by Members, was still outstanding. The Sexual Offences Bill was going to be circulated today and to be dealt with on Friday. This was want he needed to raise to correct the programme.

What it would also need to deal within the next quarter along with the budgets is the second and third quarter report of the DoJ&CD. Before he tabled the report on the first term programme he felt he needed to draw the Members attention to those corrections. Giving a brief background on the programme, he said that the first programme indicated that the term would finish on 26 March. As Members know, every Thursday, the Programming Committee meets, looks at the programme and sometimes revises it, depending on the prevailing circumstances. The programme has been revised and the Committee would now be adjourning on 19 March. Effectively, the last sitting of the House will be on 18 March as 19 March is a Friday. The programme, therefore, needed to be revised along these lines. If the Committee wants these Bills to be passed before it adjourns, as targeted, the Committee needs to ensure the Bills are complete by 12 March, to adhere to the three-day rule. It would be working morning, afternoon and evening as decided by Members to finish the Bills.

He put the programme for consideration by the Committee.

Deliberations on the Committee Programme

Mr Horn said he had no input regarding the programme. However, he requested that at the bottom of the programme, where there were nine priorities identified for next term, as previously discussed, a tenth priority area be added about scheduling a specific meeting about the Office of the Master of the High Court next term.

The Chairperson agreed and said it should be a priority area when the Committee returns. He thought that all Members were receiving disturbing reports about that office. The Committee has started focussing on specific areas of concern in the Department such as the report received last week from the Solicitor-General and it was always the Committee's to prioritise it. He said that the Committee should not only add it as a tenth item, but it should be prioritised as well.

Ms Mofokeng said that she had thought that Mr Horn was going to remind the Chairperson that amongst other things, a briefing regarding the suspended KwaZulu-Natal Head needed to be included as requested in the Subcommittee in their meeting the day before. The Subcommittee suggested a full briefing be given on one of the days as to progress in this regard on one of the days.

The Chairperson said he thought the Committee Secretary would be noting it. He asked if this would be as a Subcommittee or a full Committee.

Ms Mofokeng said that Mr Horn was here and could suggest, but she thought it would be best as a full Committee.

Mr Horn said he was indebted to Ms Mofokeng and he agreed with her saying that seriousness of the matter would demand the attention of the full Committee.

The Chairperson said that these would be part of the urgent matters when it meets early in the next term. He asked if there was a mover and seconder of the programme with amendments.

Ms Mofokeng moved and Mr Horn seconded.

He asked if there were any objections, and there were none; the Chairperson noted the programme was duly adopted.

The Chairperson said that he had to notify Members that the Committee would try not to meet beyond 10pm once it started meeting in the evenings. He encouraged political parties, as the Members were familiar with the issues – particularly to do with domestic violence, and sexual offence. As a result, he thought that by now, the Members were clearer about areas of concern and areas where there might be general consensus, which it should leverage in order to expedite the finalisation of the Bills. He thought that the Committee needed to prepare upfront and focus on the areas where it thought there was a need for greater discussion, as briefings were received from the Department when the Committee was dealing with public submissions. He encouraged Members to re-visit those discussions as part of its preparations so that the Committee tries to fast-track decision making to the best of its ability.

He thanked Members and asked that they move to consideration of minutes.

Apologies related to the Magistrates' Commission

Mr Horn said that he and Mr R Dyantyi (ANC) might need to be excused as the full Magistrates' Commission was meeting on Friday as interviews are being conducted. Although he would want to prioritise the Portfolio Committee's meeting with the Judiciary, the difficulty with the Magistrates' Commission in some instances is that if Members of Parliament (MPs) absence themselves there with apology, then they might run into an issue regarding quorum. He was speaking on Mr Dyantyi's behalf to explain that it was not because they were delinquent Members, but rather because it has this commitment.

The Chairperson asked when the last day of the interviews was because he was under the impression they would end today.

Mr Horn said he would not be able to comment on this because he is not on the Appointment Subcommittee and was in another Committee, which thankfully did not meet as often. However, on Friday, it will be a meeting of the full Commission.

Ms Mofokeng said that the meetings should end the next day.

The Chairperson said that there might be more clarity the next day. However, he asked that Mr Horn please encourage Mr J Selfe (DA) to be present, because as Mr Horn would know, one of the issues raised by the Chief Justice is that in the previous term, there was poor attendance from MPs. He was advised that the Chief Justice had also invited all Heads of Courts and Presidents of Regional Courts. He thought it important that by all means Mr Horn try to be present. But if it was not possible, he asked that Mr Horn pleas encourage Adv. Breytenbach and Mr Selfe to be present.

Mr Horn said that he would do this and he would also have an engagement with the Secretary of the Magistrates' Commission to see whether the absence of the Members for the two or three hours of the meeting scheduled with the Judiciary would threaten the quorum. If not, they could possibly ask to be excused for a period from that meeting.

The Chairperson said that it would also try be brief  the intention of the Committee was not to have a very long meeting since it is more of an introductory meeting because the term of the Chief Justice is coming to an end. In fact, it is more of a courtesy meeting since it had not formally met with the Judiciary since the Committee's resumption of office in 2019. He asked that Members try and do what was possible to be present.

Mr Horn said this was in order.

Consideration and adoption of meeting minutes

The Chairperson asked the Chairperson to display the minutes and asked Members if the minutes should be taken as read, since they were circulated before the meeting.

Mr Horn said it was in order.

The Chairperson asked if there were any correction. As there were none, he asked if there was a mover for adoption of the minutes.

Ms Mofokeng moved for adoption.

Ms Newhoudt-Druchen seconded the motion.

The Chairperson asked if there were any objections.

There were no objections, and the Chairperson declared the minutes adopted.

The Chairperson thanked the Members and said that before adjourning, he asked that Members note that Mr S Swart (ACDP) would be with the Chief Whips’ Forum on Wednesday and Mr Dyantyi would be at the Magistrates' Commission.

Lastly, he said that with the issues being raised in the Zondo Commission, Parliamentary Committees have been advised to ensure that the do not have outstanding minutes. He asked if Members had suggestions on a process for a number of Members to meet to deal with the issue of un-adopted minutes. He would give political parties until the following week to consider who should serve in that particular subcommittee, as the matter needed to be dealt with urgently. The legal implications are serious because for all minutes, Members need to go back and check who attended the meeting and one cannot have people who were not a part of the meeting adopting the minutes of that particular meeting, as it would be incorrect. He asked that in the next meeting, Members ensure that it comes up with the names of the people who would look into these issues and advise the Committee accordingly.


Ms Newhoudt-Druchen asked that the Secretariat provide a spreadsheet to Members of minutes not adopted.

Ms Mofokeng agreed.

Mr Horn said that this was fine. He wanted to propose Adv. Breytenbach, although she was not in attendance. He would discuss it further with her and Mr Selfe.

The Chairperson asked that the Committee come back to deal with the matter later on the same week. He added that Members would meet again at 4pm later that day to deal with the deliberations on the Criminal Matters and Related Matters Amendment Bill.

The meeting was adjourned.

 

Download as PDF

You can download this page as a PDF using your browser's print functionality. Click on the "Print" button below and select the "PDF" option under destinations/printers.

See detailed instructions for your browser here.

Share this page: