I have been informed that the Deputy Minister will be answering the question on behalf of the Minister. [Applause.]
Mr Speaker, yes indeed, I will be answering on behalf of the Minister as he is abroad.
As the hon member knows, section 179(1) of the Constitution provides that there is a single National Prosecuting Authority, NPA, in the Republic structured in terms of the Act of Parliament. It consists of the National Director of Public Prosecutions, NDPP, who is the Head of the National Prosecuting Authority, and is appointed by the President, as head of the national executive, and it also consists of Directors of Public Prosecutions and prosecutors. The Deputy National Director of Public Prosecutions, Adv Nomgcobo Jiba, has been acting as the National Director of Public Prosecutions since December 2011. Adv Jiba continues to discharge her duties as acting NDPP in accordance with the Constitution and the laws of the Republic.
After the Constitutional Court had ruled on the appointment of Adv Menzi Simelane as NDPP on 5 October 2012, the Presidency issued a statement in which it indicated that it respects and will abide by the ruling of the Constitutional Court, which is the highest court in our democracy, and that it will study the judgment.
Section 10 of the National Prosecuting Authority Act provides that the President must, in accordance with section 179 of the Constitution, appoint the national director. I am advised that the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development has, at the time of receiving the hon member's question, not received the request for advice from the President of the Republic on the appointment of the National Director of Public Prosecutions.
It is worth noting that the NPA consists of one national director, four deputy national directors, nine directors and 3 028 prosecutors. The NPA as an integral component of our criminal justice system and under the leadership of the acting NDPP continues to make a valuable contribution to ensure that all in South Africa are safe and feel safe. I thank you.
Mr Speaker, that is an awfully long-winded way of saying that the President hasn't yet sought his opinion. Please allow me to ask the hon Deputy Minister the following: If the President should consult the hon Minister, as he will again, on a chosen candidate whose CV or work history contains unresolved disciplinary issues, will the hon Minister once again ignore such issues? I refer, of course, to the fact that he rejected the Public Service Commission's, PCS's, recommendation of April 2009, when the view of the PSC was solicited by the then Minister of Justice, Enver Surty, that Adv Simelane should be subjected to a disciplinary inquiry following his performance at the Ginwala Inquiry. The Minister rejected that recommendation.
I refer also to the abandonment of disciplinary proceedings against the present acting NDPP before her appointment as the acting deputy NDPP. Proceedings against her were abandoned perhaps as a result of the intercession of the hon Minister. The hon Minister seems to approve the appointment of prosecuting heads with disciplinary clouds hanging over their heads.
I don't need to spell out to the Deputy Minister that our courts have now said that objective jurisdictional facts must demonstrate the fitness and propriety of an NDPP in order to demonstrate their integrity, conscientiousness and experience. Therefore, such unresolved disciplinary issues, when hanging over the head of a potential appointee, militate against the requirement of fitness and propriety. Is the hon Minister going to ignore disciplinaries once again. [Time expired.]
Mr Speaker, I believe that my reply was not long-winded, but comprehensive and for a very good reason, because it sets out the exact requirement in the Constitution and the law of what the President needs to do when appointing a National Director of Public Prosecutions. In fact, there is very little that is supplementary in the hon member's question; rather, it supplements the political points that she has scored elsewhere. So I don't think there is really much to reply to.
The Constitution and the law are very clear about both the criteria for the appointment of the national director and the process to be followed. I thank you. [Applause.]
Mr Speaker, the Justice portfolio committee is concerned about the length of time taken to appoint the National Director of Public Prosecutions. Arising from the reply, will the hon Deputy Minister agree that the outcomes of the cases against Rodavan Karadzic, Andrew Phillips and Dave King, together with the abuse of the plea bargain system that resulted in self-confessed murderers, hitmen and drug kingpins like Glenn Agliotti, Nigel May Gag, amongst others, going free, are clear indications that the National Prosecuting Authority is in desperate need of a national director, if only to remove any perception that the NPA is rudderless and in crisis?
Mr Speaker, as indicated in my reply, there is one NDPP and there is no doubt that it is a very important position. But, firstly, in the structure of the National Prosecution Authority there are four national deputy directors of prosecutions, nine provincial directors of public prosecutions and 3 028 prosecutors. The NPA does not consist of the National Director of Public Prosecutions alone.
Secondly, I think that Adv Jiba as an acting National Director of Public Prosecutions has been conducting the affairs of the National Prosecuting Authority strictly in terms of the Constitution and the law. In fact, the NPA is, far from being in any crisis, making a valuable contribution towards our fight against crime and corruption and ensuring that in South Africa all are safe and feel safe. Thank you. [Applause.]
Matters highlighted by Auditor-General
380. Mr E M Sulliman (ANC) asked the Minister of International Relations and Co-operation:
What steps has she taken to deal with the matters of emphasis highlighted by the Auditor-General in his unqualified audit opinion in the 2011-12 financial year? NO3792E
Hon members, I have been informed that the Deputy Minister will be answering the questions on behalf of the Minister.
Speaker, the Auditor-General did not highlight any matters of emphasis in his unqualified audit opinion in 2011-12, except for other matters. So, there were no matters of emphasis raised.
However, what we have done in the meantime, is to put in place an Audit Implementation Plan to deal with these other matters, and it was developed and submitted to the National Treasury on 30 September 2012.
House Chairperson, I wish to thank the Deputy Minister for his reply. In recent years the department received good audit reports - for example, a clean audit report in book year 2009-10 - and for this, the department has to be congratulated. I would like to know if the National Treasury has approved the Audit Implementation Plan yet. If so, has it been implemented within the department? I thank you.
Yes, the Treasury has reflected on that. I can indicate issues regarding asset management, predetermined objectives and information and communications technology, ICT, governance. And we have put in place not only the plan to Treasury, but we have also started to put in place corrective measurers. It relates to tight control measures, etc. Thank you.
House Chairperson, an issue of concern for me is that the Deputy Minister is saying that there were no material findings; and yet there was reference to supply chain management issues, which are very, very pertinent issues. I am not sure what the Deputy Minister is saying in that regard.
I understand the hon member, the hearing aid ... No, I didn't say "no material findings". I said there were no matters of importance, but there were other matters, raised in the report. Those other matters, amongst others, as I have indicated, related to asset management and the process around that as well as to the procurement process and the tighter control measures around that. So, those are issues.
Just to mention an example around the point you have raised is that the department improved its supply chain management tracking system through the implementation of a centralised point. This is to strengthen the receiving of invoices and documentation for both the head office and the missions.
As you would recall, a lot of the issues related to the missions, how they came from there to the head office and the interactions around it. Just a correction: It was not an issue of no material findings, but of other matters that have been raised.
House Chair, also mentioned in the report was unauthorised expenditure of R98,91 million for the financial year 2006-07, which is still awaiting authorisation. It related to the overspending of the Vote or main division within the Vote. What has the Minister done to resolve this matter?
And seeing that the financial section of the department does not obey the rules as it does not get requisitions, as their reports are full of mistakes and the employees work outside employment without permission, I would like to know what the Minister is going to do? There is no use to put in measures. I would like to know what she is doing about those personnel that are doing all the wrong things. Thank you.
I think we are specifically dealing with 2011-12. There were certain areas that were specifically raised in terms of the question, and let me just identify them. They concern the procurement process - I think hon member Smuts raised that - and the supply chain management process in that regard where normally, at least, three quotations are required.
There were instances, for example, where you would hear about an emergency incoming visit that would need to be dealt with and an emergency errand taking place. So, there are those types of anomalies. What we have agreed upon is that we must also put rules in place to regulate those abnormal situations properly. They are not in theory being put in place but are already in place. Our department is already dealing with that section and has started to implement the rules. We would be able to report to Parliament in the future around that issue. Thank you.
SA Navy submarine collision with harbour wall in East London
378. Mr M A Mncwango (IFP) asked the Minister of Defence and Military Veterans:
(1) Whether one of the SA Navy submarines collided with the harbour wall in East London recently as a result of human error; if not, what is the position in this regard; if so, what are the relevant details;
(2) whether the crew (a) required trauma conselling before consenting to return to Cape Town and (b) had been trained to deal with an incident like this; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details;
(3) whether additional training will be given to submarine crews to prevent similar incidents from occurring; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details? NO2604E
Hon Chair, the answer to the question raised by hon Mncwango is as follows. The SA Navy categorically states that none of its submarines had collided with a harbour wall in East London. However, it is hereby confirmed that the SA submarine, the SAS Queen Modjadji I, made contact with the sea bottom mud and sand on 18 July 2012 during a failed routine diving safety drill and hydraulic-oil pressure exercise.
The SA Navy convened a formal board of inquiry to determine all the factors that had given rise to this incident. Furthermore, the board of inquiry made recommendations on the submarine doctrine utilised, the standard operating procedures, training curricular in force, and possible engineering changes that may have to be implemented on board the three SA Navy submarines.
A technical investigation has determined that the SAS Queen Modjadji I has only suffered an indentation, which is approximately 1,5 m by 1,5 m, to the outer protective plating of 7,8 mm on the bow, protecting main ballast tank number 5.
The technical investigation has determined that the submarine has suffered no damage to the pressure hull or any of the systems on board. None of the members of the crew were injured during this incident.
All members of the crew were psychologically evaluated after the incident as part of the normal procedure. All formal members of the submarine crew had been sufficiently trained, as was proven by the actions taken after the incident.
Yes, the SA Navy has instituted a procedure whereby all members of a submarine crew, as a team, will on a regular basis exercise complex submarine evolutions of some kind ashore before proceeding to sea. I thank you.
I have been informed the hon V B Ndlovu will take the follow-up question. The hon Ndlovu.
House Chair, my first follow-up question to the Minister is that you said there was no collision whereas there was one. I don't understand what you meant. You also said that there was a lot of money that was spent in order to repair the submarine and that an evaluation was done. All these cost money. A board of inquiry was also instituted and incurred costs. What does the Minister say about all those issues? Have those people been found guilty of causing the damage or was it regarded as a normal incident?
Thank you, hon Ndlovu. Hon Mncwango's question is whether the submarine collided with the harbour wall. The response that I have given to you is that, no, it did not collide with the harbour wall; rather, it hit the sea bottom, which is different from colliding with a wall.
And I never said there were no damages. Damages were obviously incurred, but what is important is that human lives were saved and that none of those who were part of that crew were injured. Instead, all of them were subjected to trauma counselling due to the trauma that they had gone through.
With regard to the costs, I had said that 1,5 x 1,5 metres of the protective platting was dented and, of course, to repair that will cost us R500 000 - half a million. Thank you. [Interjections.]
Order, hon members, order!
House Chair, I thank the hon Minister for the response. Can I check the following with you, hon Minister. In April this year, one commander Handsome Thamsanqa Matsane became the first officer to command these submarines. He, in fact, became the first black officer to command these submarines. Since this one particular submarine was involved in this kind of accident, would it be by sheer coincidence or could one suspect some sabotage by the disgruntled members of the Navy?
Further, if you would allow me, House Chair, is the House privy to the recordings of the black box? And, if so, what was obtained from the black box?
Regarding the appointment of Thamsanqa Matsane, I do not even know who he is and when he was appointed, because you did not initially raise that kind of question. But as far as I am concerned, the report of the board of inquiry that has been presented to me does not point to conspiracy theories. The point is that an accident occurred, and if you want to get more information, we can give the report to the Joint Standing Committee on Defence.
There are technical issues which have been pointed out by the board of inquiry, which arose as a result of the investigation. If you require that kind of detail too, I am ready to appear before the committee and give that information to you. However, matters of conspiracy, sabotage and so on are matters which are not uppermost in our minds right now because there is no such threat in South Africa. Thank you. [Applause.]
Thank you, hon Minister, for the response to the question asked by hon Mncwango. I would like to know whether there have been any other accidents that involved the SA Navy submarines due to human error. And, if so, what action was taken at that time to correct any future occurrences. Thank you.
The last accident we had dates back to more than 25 years. I would imagine that if we need that report, I can go and get the information and come back to explain what steps were taken to deal with that particular matter. I am dealing with a matter that has occurred recently, which I'm aware of, and the results of the investigations that were conducted. Thank you.
Minister, the real issue here is not the state of the submarine service or indeed the state of the SA Navy. The real issue here is the state or the combat readiness of the SA National Defence Force, SANDF. The Minister would be aware that there is a public perception that the Defence Force is in such poor shape that it offers President Jacob Zuma only one option in the event of a state of national defence and that is surrender!
That perception persists because the former Minister refused to brief the Joint Standing Committee on Defence on the combat readiness of the SA National Defence Force. Will the Minister, therefore, authorise the military command to finally brief this Parliament on the combat readiness of the SA National Defence Force? [Interjections.]
Order, hon members!
Hon Chairperson, I thought that I am the Minister appointed to deal with these matters, and if there is a need for me to appear before the... [Interjections.] You have been shouting and shouting. Listen, hon Swathe, listen to hear what I'm saying. And you are shouting on a matter that you do not even understand!
Anyway, hon Maynier, if you want me to appear before the Joint Standing Committee on Defence, I will do so. However, you are also equally aware of the fact that there is currently a defence review process, and I am aware that you people have participated in that process. Finally, a report will be tabled to this Parliament, which will help develop a framework within which we put together and develop, or even capacitate and enhance, the capabilities of our Defence Force.
Special Investigation Unit to investigate corruption in Public Service
377. Mr L Ramatlakane (Cope) asked the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development:
Whether his department is currently preparing proclamations for the President directing the Special Investigating Unit (SIU) to investigate corruption in the Public Service; if not, what is the position in this regard; if so, (a) in respect of which (i) departments, (ii) entities and (iii) persons is each proclamation prepared and (b) how many of these investigations follow on corruption identified by the Auditor-General?