Mr Speaker, I want to thank the hon member for raising this question as it speaks to one of the core mandates of the department, namely providing an accessible and transformed justice service, committed to the promotion of constitutional values for all. One of the injustices of the past is the fact that branch courts, which were not equipped to provide essential services such as child maintenance, protection orders, deceased estates, adoption orders and legal remedies in civil disputes, were established in townships and rural areas. This resulted in many people, mostly the poor, travelling vast distances to main courts where these services were provided.
One of the projects the department initiated to make access to justice for all a reality is the redesignation of these branch courts as full-service courts. Ekangala is one of the 15 areas that the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development has proclaimed as a separate magisterial district with effect from 11 August 2009. This effectively means that the area has, with effect from that date, been excised from the Mkobola magisterial district, under which it fell before the proclamation, and made into a full-service court. Prior to the proclamation, the people of Ekangala had to travel to Mkobola for some of the services.
This government is promoting access to justice by bringing courts closer to the people. It must also be noted that Ekangala is less than 10 km from Bronkhorstspruit and forms part of the Mkobola magisterial district solely on the basis that it was part of the old KwaNdebele homeland in the apartheid era. The proclamation also seeks to correct this anomaly.
It is also important to mention that Ekangala is currently a circuit of the regional court, which sits in Mpumalanga. This implies that the regional magistrates from the Nelspruit or Mbombela court must travel from Nelspruit to a court in Ekangala.
I have been informed that the department is in the process of finalising the consultation process with the view to changing this position, with effect from June 2010. The regional division of Gauteng will then have jurisdiction over Ekangala. This will further increase access to justice for the communities in that area.
I have been informed that the building of the new court will be completed by 31 March 2010, after which a date for the official opening of the court will be determined in liaison with the Department of Public Works. I thank you.
Thank you, Deputy Minister, for your valuable answer. I would like to point out that Ekangala became part of Mkobola magisterial district in 1985, when it was incorporated by the apartheid government into the KwaNdebele homeland, despite resistance and opposition from the residents. When new provincial boundaries were drawn, Ekangala was mistakenly demarcated into the then Eastern Transvaal province, which is now Mpumalanga.
My follow-up question is: How will the Ministry or the department inform the Ekangala residents about the proclamation that was gazetted on 11 August 2009, to assure them that Ekangala is now part of Gauteng, notwithstanding the presence of the Mkobola and Witbank court officials at the Ekangala court? Due to literacy levels, the Government Gazette does not reach the majority of the residents. Thank you.
Madam Deputy Speaker, the government notices giving effect to this development will be published in the first week of April 2010. This will be followed by an extensive awareness campaign. The opening of the court will, in fact, mark the launch of this awareness campaign. On the day of the opening of courts, pamphlets will be distributed, the SABC will be invited to televise the event and national and community radio and print media will be used to communicate these changes. Thank you. [Applause.]
Madam Deputy Speaker, we have been informed by the Department of Justice acting directors-general and the present director- general that there is a severe backlog in the appointment of magistrates. The situation was so dire that in the response to a parliamentary question that I asked, I was told that the number of cases abandoned or dropped in 2008-09, due to various reasons, but including the shortfall of magistrates, amounted to 286 837.
The implementation of the Children's Act, which comes into effect on 1 April 2010, requires an additional 20 magistrates. Can the Deputy Minister please inform us how many magistrates will be employed at the Ekangala magistrate's court and how will these magistrates be sought? If they are sought from other magistrates' courts, will they be replaced or will they leave a vacuum in those courts?
Madam Deputy Speaker, a big part of the question the hon Michael has posed is in fact a new question. Let me try to clarify. It is true that the process of appointing magistrates is a very lengthy one. We have raised that with the Magistrates' Commission. We are happy to say the process is speeding up. In fact, the last meeting of the Magistrates' Commission made recommendations in respect of many of the outstanding vacancies.
What's important to clarify is that even where there is a vacant magistrate's position, it does not mean there is no warm body sitting in that position. Those positions are all filled by the appointment of acting magistrates. There is no single position that is vacant in the true sense of word, where someone is not sitting there and hearing cases.
In the case of the Ekangala court, it's also important to point out that it is indeed a functioning court. There are magistrates sitting there. Where there are vacancies, there are acting magistrates and, should the need arise for additional posts, those will be filled on recommendation of the Magistrates' Commission.
Madam Deputy Speaker, we all know that the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development has the power to appoint acting magistrates. Can the Deputy Minister give this House a solemn undertaking that the Minister has not used, and will never use, that power to appoint individuals as acting magistrates simply as a payback for the misuse of a Public Service office to benefit the ANC, as happened with acting Judge Mpshe?
Madam Deputy Speaker, again I think that is a very different question. Should the member wish to pose that, he can do so. Let me clarify to him and the House that the power of appointing acting magistrates does rest with the Minister, but he has delegated that power to the Deputy Minister. I can give the member the assurance that acting magistrates are appointed in terms of the provisions set out in the law, most often on the recommendation of chief or senior magistrates. Thank you. [Applause.]
Particulars regarding investigation into conduct of VIP Protection Unit in relation to arrest of UCT student
21. Mr T W Coetzee (DA) asked the Minister of Police:
Whether he has launched an investigation into the conduct of the VIP Protection Unit with regard to the arrest of a certain University of Cape Town student (name furnished); if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details? NO358E
Madam Deputy Speaker, the answer to the question is that we are unable to comment on this matter, as the individual has stated that he has launched a civil claim against the department and we regard the issue as sub judice. Thank you.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise on behalf of hon Coetzee. The Minister was quoted as having said that the young man concerned had apologised and so the matter should thus be considered to be closed and yet, what we saw here was reminiscent of apartheid-era policing.
Mr Maxwele was allegedly arrested at gunpoint, had a bag pulled over his head, was then subjected to a torrent of insults and intimidation from police and intelligence officials over a 24-hour period and NIA officers raided his house.
These are the tactics of a police state, not a democracy, and the so-called apology was released a week after the incident, but was part of his initial coerced statement. This is reminiscent of Robert Mugabe's Zimbabwe, which of course the ANC is increasingly trying to emulate.
Hon member, what is the question?
I'm asking it now, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Oh, okay.
As much as the Minister might wish it away, there's no way on earth one might consider this matter closed. So, I'd like to know how far the investigation is into this shameful event and I would like an assurance to this House that the Minister will apologise to this young man personally at the conclusion thereof. [Applause.]
Madam Deputy Speaker, as I said, we can only comment on this particular matter once the court processes have been concluded. [Interjections.] Any comment before that is pre-empting the conclusion of the matter, which is sub judice. Our comments will come after that process. Thank you. [Applause.]
Madam Deputy Speaker, while the ACDP does not condone the actions of the UCT student who was arrested by the VIP Protection Unit, we nevertheless deplore the conduct of the police officers who arrested him. The student's right to be protected against torture was violated by the members of the VIP Protection Unit, who acted like they were trained by the apartheid security branch. [Interjections.]
Regardless of their claims that the student resisted arrest, there can be no justification for suffocating a person by putting a plastic bag over their head. This is evil and one of the worst forms of torture any person can suffer.
My question to the hon Deputy Minister is: After the court proceedings have been exhausted internally, is there anything that the department will do as an assurance to the public that, in future, no such activity will be tolerated from the VIP Protection Unit? Thank you.
Madam Deputy Speaker, on a daily basis, any case of abuse by any individual not for political purposes is investigated. So, once this particular process comes to a conclusion, it will be subjected to the normal procedural processes within the SA Police Service and the Ministry, and they will be in a position to give a report on this.
At the present moment the matter is sub judice. This is the rule of law. [Applause.]
Madam Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: I just need clarity as far as the sub judice rule is concerned. A sub judice rule applies before a court of law. I am not aware that this is at present before a court of law. It may be an internal inquiry. The sub judice rule does not apply to an inquiry, but only to a court of law. [Applause.]
Madam Deputy Speaker, as I have explained, the individual concerned has stated that he has launched a civil claim against the department. So, in this particular instance, what the sub judice rule means - and I am not a lawyer and will be unable to explain the point fully - is that we must allow the due processes of law to be concluded so that we are able to deal with the matter in its totality. [Interjections.]
Madam Deputy Speaker, I'm sitting next to Mr Schneemann's microphone and maybe that's why it registered his name. The VIP Protection Unit was involved in a number of incidents that drew media attention and criticisms. Will the Minister consider conducting an investigation to determine whether there is a real problem, and if there is, what it might be? If it is just a perception, how can it be corrected?
Madam Deputy Speaker, as I explained earlier on, we will be in a position, once the processes have been concluded, to present the report and allow the processes to unfold.
It would be a mistake for us to undertake one process at the expense of another. It is important to deal with the matter in its totality. Thank you very much. Particulars regarding steps to be taken against police officers and other agents who infringed the constitutional rights of a certain student
34. Mrs J D Kilian (Cope) asked the Minister of Police:
Whether the public will be informed about steps (a) implemented to investigate the matter and (b) that will be taken against police officers and other agents who infringed the constitutional rights of a certain student (name furnished); if not, why not, if so, when, in each case? NO375E
Madam Deputy Speaker, the question seems to be the same. We are aware that the individual has decided to bring a civil case against the police and we are therefore unable to comment on this matter. Thank you very much. [Applause.]
Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise again on a point of order: I do request that the Table give us an accurate description of what the sub judice rule is, because I don't think the member is actually indicating correctly what it is. We need clarity and a ruling from yourself in that regard, because, otherwise, I'm afraid, much could be hidden behind the sub judice rule when it actually doesn't apply.
Okay, any supplementary questions?
Madam Deputy Speaker, it is actually rather difficult now, because if the hon Deputy Minister is again going to hide behind what he calls a sub judice rule, which is not a sub judice rule, it means he will refrain from responding to the questions.
Answer the simple questions. We have a problem with the conduct of the VIP Protection Unit and we have a problem with the actions taken by the police in this regard. There clearly is an intention, but as far as we know, nothing has so far been filed. So, will the hon Deputy Minister please tell us whether he agrees with the conduct in this instance, or does he agree with the vice chancellor of UCT's view, when he said: "We want you to use your powers as a police force and not bully citizens that display their frustration at government's lack of response to their needs." [Applause.]
Order! Before the Deputy Minister answers, can I appeal to the House and those hon members who would like to ask questions, to take the word of the Deputy Minister for now. I will then look at that particular rule and come back with a response. I don't have a response in front of me now. So, I am saying we should take the word of the Deputy Minister. Those people who would like to ask questions must ask questions, but we cannot say that the Deputy Minister's application of the sub judice rule is wrong. Can we do that, until we have the interpretation of the rule in front of us?
Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order: In addition to that, I thought that one of the rules of the questions to Ministers mentions the fact that there should not be two questions that are substantially the same on an Order Paper. That is part of the problem we are confronting here.
The Minister of Police, through his deputy, has been asked to answer the same substantial question twice. I also think that if we follow the procedure you're requesting - where we look over what is done -we will also find a problem in the way the questions have been tabled. [Applause.]
Hon Ngonyama, is yours a point of order too?
Madam Deputy Speaker ...
No ... Hon Ngonyama, I have a list in front of me. Hon Kilian had a follow-up question, and if you would like to ask another follow-up question, just raise your hand so that I can be made aware.
Madam Deputy Speaker, may I address you on an issue?
Yes.
Madam Deputy Speaker, you have asked us to accept the word of the Deputy Minister until the matter has been cleared. This matter is of great importance in terms of the way in which the country generally sees the role of the police protection units. I would like to recommend that this question be held over until this time next week, so that we actually have the opportunity to investigate the matter. The Deputy Minister could be here and we could actually add this as an extra item for Question Time during the course of next week. I urge you to consider that.
What does that proposal mean - that the question must not be put to the Minister now?
Madam Deputy Speaker, you are quite right. We should delay the answering of the question today so that we could investigate the matter and put it to the House next week.
Order! Hon members, I was consulting with the Table. Now, the question has been put and there were some answers. If we stop the question now and shelve it for next week, the cluster that was supposed to be dealt with next week will suffer.
So, rather than adjourn the questioning now, so that we can repeat the same questions next week, the recommendation is that we should continue with this question. Hon members who are not satisfied can still ask supplementary questions in the form of a letter.
Madam Deputy Speaker, may I rise and point out one thing? We have to be consistent in terms of our rulings. You will recall some time ago there was a ghastly incident at the University of the Free State. It involved the Reitz Four. An inquiry was instigated. It didn't stop this House debating at length what should have happened to those individuals and the consequences thereof. We have to be consistent. We must either say, if it's an investigation, it is part of the sub judice rule, or not. [Interjections.]
Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. You have consulted with the Table, and you have been advised. Their advice is sensible and it offers all of us an opportunity to await that determination. So, I think hon Davidson should not proceed with it.
Madam Deputy Speaker, could I then also ask you ... [Interjections.] The fact that they are unhappy with the responses provided by the Deputy Minister is not material. [Interjections.] We have completed the first question that relates to this matter. Could I ask you, Madam Deputy Speaker, to rule on the other substantive point of order that I brought, which is that this question is substantially the same as the preceding question. [Interjections.]
It is against the procedures of Parliament to ask the same question twice and to table them. Could I ask you for a ruling in that regard?
Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise on two points of order. Firstly, if I understood you correctly, a point of order was raised by the DA colleague and you ruled that you will respond to that point of order once properly advised. I would like to point out that, in terms of the Rules, you bear the responsibility of ruling on any point of order which affects the conduct of the debate, as this one does. If this debate is to continue, I submit to you that it is incumbent upon you to rule whether or not it is legitimate for the Deputy Minister not to respond on the basis of the matter being sub judice. So we cannot delay the debate.
The second point of order, Madam Speaker, is that you should not be able to entertain the exception of a sub judice situation without you and the House having been provided with specific information, whether the case is pending or not; it is an affirmative defence. The burden is on the Deputy Minister to tell us that it is pending. It is not sufficient to stop a parliamentary debate on the mere possibility that the person might have announced that civil action might be brought at a future time. Thank you. [Applause.]
Hon members, the Chairperson cannot determine the correctness or otherwise of any answer. The Deputy Minister has answered here and has responded by saying that there is a lawsuit against the police. Now, the response of the Deputy Minister is being questioned by hon members who say that the sub judice rule does not apply in this instance. I have ruled earlier that we should complete the question. In fact, I think there are only one or two speakers who haven't asked their questions.
We will look at what the sub judice rule is saying and clarify for ourselves whether it applies to what the Deputy Minister is saying. I really think we are going to delay this matter because the responses have been given by the Minister already. There is no other response that he is going to give on this matter. Moreover, because I am not able to rule now and say that that particular rule is inapplicable and the Minister must answer differently, I am really not able to help you in this instance.
Madam Deputy Speaker, can I just seek clarity here. If indeed the response from the Table, after getting legal advice, is that this matter is not sub judice, what happens then? How do we get the answers? What mechanism is there to get answers in this House?
Madam Deputy Speaker, if I can add to that, I think we are placing the Deputy Minister in an invidious position. We are asking him to answer a question to which he has been given certain advice. He has said to us that it is sub judice. We are questioning whether it is sub judice. He - and I am not pointing fingers at him - is in an invidious position. We are trying to make it easy for all concerned.
If I look at Rule 109, for example, it states that if a Minister or a Deputy Minister is absent on the day, 30 minutes can be added on to the Question Time the following week. I know that nobody is absent today, but I am saying that there are opportunities, if we create them ourselves as Parliament, for this kind of thing to happen. I would really urge again that you consider making time available before 3 o'clock next week, if necessary, for us to deal with this matter. It is important.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I think there is a particular way in which we should be cautioned about this matter. The purpose of this exercise is for Members of Parliament to raise questions which have to be responded to by the relevant answerers. They are not entitled to the kind of answer they want. The Minister has chosen ... no, no ... [Interjections.]
Can I finish? You don't predetermine the answer. The hon Deputy Minister has responded. If we allow this ruling to continue the way it is now, it will not be sustainable, because, on a future occasion, somebody will say that they are not happy with the answer given then. The Minister has given a response and that's the way he has chosen to respond.
Madam Deputy Speaker, my colleague is exactly right. The point is that they don't agree with the responses that have been given by the Deputy Minister. They are entitled to disagree with his responses but that is not a point of order. That is a point of disagreement. Therefore, they are completely out of order to raise a point of order around issues with which they don't agree.
Therefore, I really beg of you, Deputy Speaker, firstly, to move on, and not to defer the matter and so on, because the hon Deputy Minister has answered. They don't like the answers, but he has answered.
Secondly, I really request once more for you to rule on the second issue, the second point of order that I have brought, which is that the question that we are now standing on is substantially the same as the preceding question.
Therefore, can you please rule that, in fact, this question should fall away at this point?
Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
Hon members, I will allow all your points of order, but can I just remind you that the time for questions is running out. Therefore, all the points of order that you are raising now are eating into the time for other important questions that have been asked. So, just don't complain when the time expires.
From the Chair, I have made a ruling which states that whether this matter is sub judice or not will be investigated, and we will come with a ruling on that.
The second suggestion - that we should defer this matter to next week - I will not be able to agree to because I am not a member of the programme committee; I am a Chairperson of this session. The programme committee must do that. You are putting me, as the Chairperson, in this difficult position.
So, do I allow all the points of order to take the time of other questions? Is that what you want?
Madam Deputy Chair, I rise on a point of order!
If it is a point of order, let me go according to ...
Madam Deputy Speaker, as the ANC, firstly, we strongly support Deputy Minister Cronin on his point that the question has been placed on the Order Paper twice. He is clearly correct. We will ask a ruling that it be removed.
Secondly, I am absolutely amazed. This is obviously coming from what happened last week. It is clearly an attempt to disrupt this House on every single occasion and to put pressure on a presiding officer of this House to make rulings because they want to play political games.
Madam Deputy Speaker, on a point of order ...
There is one person, hon Ellis, who has been in this Parliament for so long, probably 30 years. He knows the Rules. He knows exactly when we created these Rules and that there are three clusters that rotate. The only occasion on which a question can be moved to the next Question Time is when there is absence of an answer; not when the answer has been given. You cannot do what the hon Ellis has done when he said: Give us a week because we want to go and check what the case is here.
The Rules are clear: When you do not like a question ... No Minister is entitled ... He can answer what he wants to. No Minister, once he has answered the question, on the basis of not liking or wanting to get further evidence ... There are other mechanisms to deal with it. If you are unhappy with the answer in terms of its veracity, you bring a request to the House to have an investigation. If you do not like the question, you can ask another, either an oral question on the next occasion, or you can ask a written question. Those are the mechanisms.
We would ask that, on both these issues, you please rule and do not allow the House to be disrupted in the manner that the DA is doing, particularly if those disrupting are senior members of the House. [Applause.]
Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to suggest the hon De Lange first studies the Rules of this House before he speaks, because there is nothing wrong. Maybe he can sit in this House for 30 years and he will still not know the details.
As to Deputy Minister Cronin, there is nothing that prohibits... in fact, I would suggest the hon Minister of Police should have argued that the two questions are pretty much the same. For us to know that when we submit questions is clearly impossible. So, these questions were submitted to the Minister and he could have responded by saying that the matter is sub judice. We would then have been alerted and could have placed other questions higher up.
I believe this is nothing but a way of not responding. Therefore, today, we know what the answer is: Hon Mbalula supports the bullying tactics of the VIP Unit. Thank you very much. [Applause.]
Madam Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: The House maintains an unequal hierarchy of authority. I speak from here and you, Deputy Speaker, speak from where you are. It is not equal. In other words, once you make a ruling, all of us, without exception, without fear or favour, must accept that ruling. If we are unhappy about that ruling, it is natural and human that we would find ways of challenging it.
In conclusion, you did not stifle any debate today. You only indicated that you wanted to study that Rule and come back to us. So, be firm and decisive, and close this issue until you come back to us.
If people are allowed to behave the way some people are behaving in this honourable House, we will never make progress. Decide, and we shall obey. [Applause.]
Madam Deputy Speaker, my point is that an hon member from Cope referred to the Deputy Minister of Police as supporting the bullying tactics of the police. That is not parliamentary. Can the member withdraw that bullying tactic?
Would the hon member who said that like to say something?
Madam Deputy Speaker, if it came across that I said he supports it, I meant to say it appears that he supports it. [Applause.]
What exactly did you say? Did you say he supported it?
Madam Deputy Speaker, it will be difficult for me now because it was said in the course of debate. I cannot recall exactly what I said.
Hon Kilian, since you cannot recall, do you mind withdrawing what you said?
I withdraw. [Interjections.]
Madam Deputy Speaker, on a point of order!
Hon Kilian...
Madam Deputy Speaker!
I see you. I am still talking to the hon Kilian.
Madam Deputy Speaker, as I've said, if I directly accused him of supporting that, then I withdraw. But, if I have said ... [Interjections.]
No, no, no, thank you, hon Kilian, that's all I wanted. Thank you very much. What's your point of order, hon Ambriosi?
Madam Deputy Speaker, first of all, it's Ambrosini, I would appreciate you pronouncing it correctly.
Ambrosini, yes. Sorry, that's not my mother tongue. [Laughter.]
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am rising because this is an important matter of freedom of speech in this House. I remember what the hon member said and we all heard it. She said: "The bullying tactics of the VIP Units - are they being supported by the Minister?" [Interjections.]
Hon Ambrosini, thank you very much. The hon member has withdrawn already.
Madam Deputy Speaker, she could not have withdrawn what she did not say. [Interjections.]
Hon members, can we proceed? By now, I've given everybody a chance. In fact, I do not think we have a lot of time left for questions. My ruling still stands that this question has been answered but if there is any member who feels strongly that it must come back, that member must definitely bring it back as an urgent question or motion. Then, automatically, the programme committee will take it for next week. Can we move to another Question, not question 34?
Particulars regarding purpose of, and attendance at, police function in Bloemfontein
15. Mrs L S Chikunga (ANC) asked the Minister of Police:
(a) What was the purpose of the police function in Bloemfontein and (b) how many police officers attended the function?