Deputy Speaker, let me say from the outset that South Africa acceded to the treaty of the Southern African Development Community Tribunal. We think it is a very useful institution.
However, SADC has realised that there are challenges in running the SADC Tribunal. These challenges make the judgments which emanate from the tribunal difficult to implement in member countries. Zimbabwe leads in this regard.
In light of these several challenges, let me just quote the decision taken at SADC's 30th jubilee summit which was held in Windhoek, Namibia, from 16 to 17 August 2010: "A review of the role, functions and terms of reference of the SADC Tribunal should be undertaken and concluded within six months."
This is a follow-up of an endorsement of a recommendation that was made by SADC Ministers of justice in April 2010 in Kinshasa. It was not just a meeting of Ministers of justice; the meeting included a delegation of attorneys-general of SADC.
Now, this review is necessary to give this tribunal the necessary credibility and effectiveness to which the hon member referred.
The interpretation of how the SADC Tribunal itself should have been put to use differed across SADC member countries. Many SADC countries assumed that, by acceding to the treaty, there would be no need to ratify the protocol in their respective parliaments. So, this is just one of the big challenges with which the SADC Tribunal is faced.
We truly hope that by the end of the six months, Ministers of justice and attorneys-general of SADC would have applied their minds and taken care of the many loopholes that have been identified by the learned Ministers of justice and attorneys-general. Thank you.
Thank you, Deputy Speaker. Minister, in view of the decisions of the summit that you have just outlined, what then are the implications for the tribunal in the interim and, of course, for the matter of the Zimbabwean farmers on whom the tribunal has passed judgment? Thank you.
Deputy Speaker, one of the key challenges, as I said earlier, is the enforceability of the outcomes or judgments from the tribunal, particularly on member countries that have not ratified the protocol itself.
What will happen within the six-month period to the life of the tribunal is that it will continue its work, pending the outcome of the review by the Ministers of justice and attorneys-general.
Deputy Speaker, I would like to thank Madam Minister for her response. It is true to say that the SADC Tribunal was known to have taken certain decisions to punish one of the member states - that is Zimbabwe, of course - but it appears now that, in turn, the summit itself decided to punish the tribunal by not reappointing the judges. Surely this raises suspicions that there must have been some kind of interference from the Zimbabwean government, because that is the government that was in breach of the decisions of the tribunal itself? Thank you.
Hon Deputy Speaker, for the hon member's information, Zimbabwe has actually withdrawn from participating in this matter. They actually had a sitting judge who they have officially withdrawn. So, the decisions were not taken or influenced by what is happening in Zimbabwe.
Member countries, who so dearly respect the tribunal and want it to continue, deemed it necessary and important to strengthen it and give it the necessary legitimacy, after having realised the shortcomings in the way in which this matter came up.
But, there is also an issue around the number of countries that have actually ratified the protocol itself, which will then have to be taken into consideration within this period of six months.
So, the decision by the Ministers of justice and the summit leaders or heads of state was not influenced by Zimbabwe at all.
Deputy Chairperson, I'd like to ask the hon Minister whether South Africa was able to discuss the impact of Zimbabwe's refusal directly with Zimbabwe, in view of the significant impact Zimbabwe has on South Africa owing to a common border. If not, why not, and is government concerned about the situation? If we have discussed it directly, what are the relevant details in terms of a one-on-one relationship? Thank you.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I don't understand the question. Is it about the tribunal or Zimbabwe-South Africa relations in general? I need clarity, so that I'm able to respond to the question.
Deputy Speaker, it will be linked to the tribunal only in terms of the relationship we have with Zimbabwe. Are we able to discuss this sort of issue with them directly on a one-to-one basis?
Well, hon President Zuma remains the facilitator who, on behalf of SADC, monitors the full implementation of Zimbabwe's Global Political Agreement. Now, yes, we are engaging with Zimbabweans on other matters relating to the full implementation of the Global Political Agreement. But, on the matter of the tribunal, one of the difficulties is the enforceability of judgments passed by the tribunal which actually do not consider Zimbabwe's own national Constitution. So, we cannot choose to engage Zimbabwe on outcomes of the tribunal outside the SADC summit. If we were to do that, it would have to be within the parameters of where the matter is being discussed. We will wait for the outcome of the review by the Ministers of justice and attorneys-general. Thank you.
Deputy Speaker, I would like to know what the hon Minister's understanding is of this matter of Zimbabwe refusing to comply with the SADC Tribunal. Does Zimbabwe want to cherry-pick by asking for SADC to help them resolve their problems, yet refusing to honour SADC decisions when it does not suit them? If this is so, what does South Africa do generally, especially with regard to other SADC members, including Zimbabwe, when they act this way?
Deputy Speaker, I have said that member countries, starting with South Africa, have acceded to the treaty and have all acknowledged - the acknowledgement was made and confirmed by the Ministers of justice and our attorneys-general - that there are challenges within this tribunal, particularly on issues of enforceability. Enforceability is one of the key problems, particularly enforceability of the judgments taken by the tribunal itself.
Now, Zimbabwe has withdrawn from the tribunal and they were not even part of the meeting of April 2010 to which I have referred. Even the member countries that want to continue with the tribunal and strengthen it, have themselves said: Give us time to strengthen this institution.
How do we then turn around - even before we get the full review report of the Ministers and the attorneys-general of all our member states, 14 of them - and say, "No, let's first deal with Zimbabwe and their cherry- picking", when we ourselves are still waiting for the report that will come out of the review process of the Ministers of justice and attorneys- general?
I think we should also not cherry-pick; we should wait for the outcome of the review process so that we can duly deal with this matter accordingly. [Applause.]
See also QUESTIONS AND REPLIES.