Hon members, requests for declarations of vote have been received and I will now allow one member of each political party wishing to make a declaration the opportunity to do so for up to three minutes. Before we do that, and while hon members are raising their hands, can I please point out that the level of noise is too high. I can't hear what the speakers at the podium are saying.
There was no debate.
Declarations of vote:
Madam Deputy Speaker, concerns have previously been raised about the lack of input that Parliament has in the agreements it is expected to ratify. This treaty with the Islamic Republic of Iran that is before us today shows why.
Apart from the rather embarrassing fact that this treaty was signed in 2004 and is only coming to this House today for ratification, there are some fundamental concerns that we have regarding some of its provisions. The treaty provides that either country may refuse extradition if they have substantial grounds to believe that the probable sentence for the offence in the other country is qualitatively different from the probable sentence given on the same offence in the courts of their country. We would have preferred the treaty to say that South Africa shall refuse to extradite under such circumstances. There are other instances in the treaty where the word "shall" is used, for example, with reference to political offences. Why is there this distinction?
While we have been assured by the state legal advisers that we would not have to extradite people where the death penalty will be applicable - given the Constitutional Court ruling in the Mohamed case - it is a source of concern to us, that during the deliberation on this treaty in our committee, the representative addressing us on the issue advised that Iran had specifically requested that reference to the death penalty be removed from the treaty ... [Interjections.] I beg your protection, Madam Deputy Speaker.
One has to wonder why. The treaty goes on to provide that either country may refuse extradition, unless the other gives a suitable undertaking or assurance that is considered sufficient by the other country that the person to be extradited will not be detained without trial, tortured in any way, or treated in a cruel, inhuman or degrading way. Our concern is, firstly, that there is no mechanism to monitor a person once they have been extradited. There is no provision for South Africa to send monitors there, for example, to ensure that they are complying with any undertaking given. There is also no definition of what constitutes cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. It is a legitimate concern, given the human rights record of Iran, to think that they may have somewhat different ideas as to what constitutes cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment from what we do.
It is, in our view, irresponsible not to have specified clearly what we are referring to and in terms of what standards. It leaves the matter open to interpretation. Once an event has occurred that we regard as inappropriate, it may be too late.
We trust that our government will ensure that, if there are any extraditions to Iran, guarantees and agreements will be elicited regarding regular monitoring and the standards we expect to be adhered to.
We would have far preferred these standards to be included in the treaty for the sake of certainty and, because they have not, we cannot vote in favour of this treaty. [Applause.]
Deputy Speaker, many years have passed since these treaties were signed in 2003 and the Portfolio Committee on Justice and Constitutional Development finds this delay most undesirable.
[Inaudible.]
Well, the hon Athol Trollip is complaining about the delay in finalising the Protection of State Information Bill. Now, he obviously wants us to rush the Bill. So, when the ad hoc committee meets, we will take hon Athol Trollip's position to the ad hoc committee and we will push it through with the necessary speed. [Laughter.]
The committee asks that the Ministry look into the reasons for the delay to ensure that this is an isolated occurrence. Our further concern with regard to these two treaties is that Parliament's involvement takes place after an agreement is negotiated and signed, and is mostly limited to either approving or not approving. The committee believes that consideration needs to be given to the development of a mechanism that will allow parliamentary committees to become involved in discussions, even at an informal level, at a much earlier stage.
The committee, as has already been stated from this podium, is concerned about extradition to the Islamic Republic of Iran, where the death penalty and other corporal punishments may be imposed. We acknowledge that the treaty does allow a requested state to refuse an extradition request. We acknowledge also that extradition can be refused unless the requesting state undertakes or gives sufficient assurance that the person sought will not be detained without trial, tortured or treated or punished in a cruel, inhuman or degrading manner. However, assurance is not necessarily a guarantee, and this is part of the committee's concern.
The committee is also of the view that the Department of International Relations and Co-operation should investigate putting a mechanism in place to monitor the treatment of those extradited. This is over and above the normal consular services and oversight. With these concerns put on record, and notwithstanding these concerns, we recommend these treaties for ratification by this House. [Applause.]
Report of Portfolio Committee adopted and Extradition Treaty between the Government of the Republic of South Africa and the Islamic Republic of Iran approved (Democratic Alliance and African Christian Democratic Party dissenting).
Report of Portfolio Committee adopted and Agreement between the Government of the Republic of South Africa and the Islamic Republic of Iran on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters approved.
CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF LEGAL AID GUIDE 2011 (12th