Question 3 has been asked by the hon Dudley and put to the Minister of International Relations and Co-operation. I've been informed that the Deputy Minister will be answering questions on behalf of the Minister. I see the hon Deputy Minister.
Hon Deputy Speaker, the South African government is continuing its efforts to engage the United Arab Emirates, UAE, authorities with a view to securing the return of Prof Karabus, as illustrated by the following.
Firstly, the moment that the arrest took place in August last year, we immediately sent our consul and consular support services out in order to give him our support and make an assessment of the issue.
Secondly, at the end of last year we wrote a letter, through our Minister, to the authorities of that country expressing our concern. At that time it was really just to make sure that there was a fair process. The judiciary on that side is independent and we did not need to get involved in the intricacies of that, but we did ask for a fair process. We called the UAE ambassador to South Africa in twice in order to express our concerns about the postponements in the case since 11 October last year. The South African government and the Embassy in Abu Dhabi had extensive interaction with the stakeholders in that country. Over the weekend just past, I had to visit Prof Karabus. I met him and made an assessment. I also met the UAE authorities and I essentially expressed our view that for humanitarian reasons he had to be allowed to return. If that didn't happen, we had to make sure that the case was finalised on 20 March this year. [Applause.]
Deputy Speaker, I should like to thank the Deputy Minister. We understand that since posing our question a strong diplomatic statement has been made to the United Arab Emirates, requesting that the Karabus case be expedited. However, the trial has been postponed again, and that is the 17th time.
We wonder, hon Deputy Minister, whether this shows any kind of particular blatant disregard, or whether it is any kind of diplomatic message in response to the diplomatic intervention on the part of South Africa. If not, how do you interpret this action which is keeping an elderly, innocent and unwell South African professor constrained in a foreign country where he has been kept for over six months already? How will government proceed with this and what options are open to us in such a situation? Thank you.
Hon member Dudley, I think we should possibly not involve the issue of innocence or guilt and all of that. We as the South African government will not make a determination on that issue. What we have made a determination on is that the consistent postponement of the case constitutes an unfair process for the professor.
At the end of last year we started to intervene and we received positive feedback. Firstly, we were able to make sure that he was able to move freely in the UAE pending the court case.
Secondly, the court has now decided that a medical review committee will investigate if Prof Karabus should or should not stand trial on the matter. That was not there a few months ago. That was not there four months ago. So, that is very, very important.
The medical review committee now has to sit and look at all the documentation before the court case and then make a recommendation. Our view is that the fact that they were not able to find the original documentation makes a very strong argument for the professor to be released and to come back.
However, having said all of that, the humanitarian consideration - his age and health condition - lays a very important responsibility on the authorities of that country. We are cautiously hopeful, but we do not want to play politics in this case. We are calling on all members and all political parties to support that.
Deputy Speaker, I would like to thank the department for intervening, but what is really a worry is the effect of a six-month postponement on an elderly person. I would like to know what is being done by the Minister to ensure that South African foreign missions provide our citizens with sufficient and effective support when they are illegally detained or similarly endangered overseas. Thank you.
Hon Deputy Speaker, I think we should be very, very cautious when speaking about whether people are legally or illegally detained. All the correct procedures were followed by the authorities.
In fact, as a member you will know that we have independence of the judiciary in South Africa. Your party also called for the independence of the judiciary. We consistently make sure that there is that distinction. It is therefore wrong for us to try to imply that a political decision can be taken in some way, not taking into account the technical legal processes.
What I am advising is that there should be sympathy for what we have put forward. In fact, the six months did not consist of delays but there were postponements because of documentation. As a government we insisted that the documentation should either be found or the medical review committee process needed to kick in. We've just been there and we can safely say that there are cases where there have been postponements and they have taken a year or a year and a half. What the South African government has done is to make sure that there is a priority process in regard to this issue. That is really the matter at hand. Thank you. [Applause.]
Thank you, Minister, for the insightful and comprehensive response. Firstly, I would like to express words of support for Prof Karabus and his loved ones in this difficult time of his life. Now, Minister, how do we handle, maintain and respect the sovereignty and the judiciaries of other countries but, at the same time, offer assistance to South African individuals who experience difficulties in those countries? Thank you.
Hon member, that is exactly the balancing process, in that it involves respect for independence; respect for the technical legal process; and refraining from taking the position that someone is innocent or guilty, because that is precedent setting. Therefore, it's important that we reflect on that very, very sensitively.
Two or three weeks ago we were called by people who were arrested in the United States. We've been called by people in Asia, and so on. In this case, what we are trying to ensure is the fact that there is a postponement. After we intervened a decision was taken to do a review. This has been delayed and that's the technicality that enables us to intervene. So, the issue is that we need to be cautious not to create a precedent that we can't sustain. It's a foreign country. It is a country with its own laws and its own regulations. Therefore we need to manage this issue in that spirit. Currently, that's the balancing act.
Hon members, the time allocated for questions has expired. Outstanding replies received will be printed in Hansard.
See also QUESTIONS AND REPLIES.