Chairperson, it looks like we are earning our keep today.
Chairperson, hon members, let me first start by acknowledging and thanking the Deputy Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development, hon John Jeffery for the excellent and sterling work he has done so far today. But also to mention that he is officially delegated the responsibility to oversee our legislative programme and you can see from the products today that he is actually earning his keep. But also to say to him that he has made my job a lot easier because I don't have to say much to hon Tshabalala except to say that, perhaps this is the time when some of her comments she made earlier should be brought up.
Indeed, the laws that we are about to repeal through this Bill are actually apartheid laws which have remained on our Statute Book and continued to be a black spot that we have always wanted to remove. So, we really are proud today that today we are finally taking off our Statute Book homeland and apartheid laws that fragmented our legal profession and did nothing to advance our cause of transformation that we are today pursuing as the ruling party. [Applause.]
Colleagues, I present a Bill aimed at amending the Attorneys Act, No 53 of 1979 as an interim measure, in order to rationalise the legal profession, pending the implementation of the Legal Practice Act, No 28 of 2014.
The attorneys in the former Bophuthatswana area are still regulated separately and there are no proper disciplinary and regulatory controls in place in that area. Candidate attorneys in that area are not required to attend approved practical legal training course, which is considered critical under the Attorneys Act, resulting in the service by candidate attorneys in this area under articles of clerkship not being recognised as proper service for purposes of the Act, and this applies to the then Transkei area as well.
The courts, and in particular the Supreme Court of Appeal, have questioned whether the Law Society of Bophuthatswana serves any useful purpose and have, in fact, urged that urgent and appropriate action be taken, which is what this Bill seeks to do in the main. Chairperson, the provisions of the Bill seeks to address the anomalies I have outlined and to ensure that the legislative framework is in keeping with the new democratic dispensation.
The Bill renames these various professional institutions governing the legal profession in those areas, in this instance, the Cape Law Society, the Law Society of Free State, the Law Society of the Northern Provinces and the KwaZulu-Natal Law Society. Through the enactment of this Bill, practitioners who are admitted to practise in the defunct homelands will now be regulated under the law society that has jurisdiction over the area that formed part of the homeland, as the case may be.
Accordingly, the Bill extends the jurisdiction of the four statutory law societies as follows: (a) The Cape Law Society has jurisdiction over all attorneys practising in the Western Cape, the Eastern Cape, including the areas of the former Republics of the Transkei and Ciskei and the Northern Cape; (b) the Law Society of the Free State has jurisdiction over all attorneys practising in the Free State; (c) the Law Society of Northern Provinces has jurisdiction over all attorneys practising in Gauteng, Mpumalanga, and the North West, including the area of the former Republics of Bophuthatswana and Limpopo, including the area of the former Republic of Venda; and (d) the KwaZulu-Natal Law Society has jurisdiction over all attorneys practising in KwaZulu-Natal.
These provisions, in effect, do away with the former homeland law societies to the extent that they still exist. On that note, it is understood that the law societies that are to be dissolved are largely empty shells and have no or very little assets or infrastructure or personnel to talk of.
The Bill also contains transitional arrangements, for instance, providing that any rights and obligations of any law society which is resolved will transfer to the Law Society of the Northern Provinces in the case of the Law Societies of the former Republics of Bophuthatswana and Venda and to the Cape Law Society in the case of the Law Societies of the former Republics of Transkei and Ciskei. Similar provisions are suggested in respect of pending legal proceedings and disciplinary enquiries that are associated therewith. The transitional provisions also ensure that vested interests are protected in this regard. In the final instance, the Bill extends the Attorneys Act to the entire country and repeals all the former homeland legislation regulating attorneys. Many of the clauses give effect to the notion that law societies are not necessarily bound to specific provinces.
Chairperson, I wish to thank the Chairperson of the Portfolio Committee on Justice and Constitutional Development, the hon Deputy Minister, who continues to provide support, as well as officials of the department under the leadership of the director-general for the contribution that they have continued to make and, of course, hon members from both the right and the left for your tireless contribution to the legislative programme that takes our country forward. I thank you. [Applause.]
Hon House Chairperson, the democratic breakthrough of 1994 found a country divided into the central white government and nonBantustans. Within the central white government, there were separate African, Indian and coloured local authorities, but separate from white municipalities.
This fragmentation also affected the legal profession. After they were declared independent states, the former Republics of Transkei, Bophuthatswana, Venda and Ciskei enacted their own legislation regulating attorneys. Twenty years into our democracy, these Bantustan laws are still applicable in the areas for which they were enacted. This is a matter of grave concern because South Africa has some of the best legal brains on the continent and in the world. Some of our lawyers, such as Justice Moloto, Fink Haysom and John Dugard have served, and still serve, in international forums. However, for 20 years into our democracy, lawyers have not succeeded to amalgamate the professional organisations and to transform the legal profession in the way that the labour movement did, and ensure that we now have one progressive labour law regime.
The first attempt at transformation of the legal profession was made in 1998, when the 1979 Attorneys Act was amended. This amendment deemed attorneys of the former Bophuthatswana and Venda to be members of the Law Society of the Northern Provinces for the purposes of obtaining indemnity cover under the Attorneys Act's Fidelity Fund certificates.
The amendment granted the Law Society of the Northern Provinces concurrent jurisdiction with the law societies of Bophuthatswana and Venda over disciplinary matters for attorneys in their area. The concurrent jurisdiction has created many challenges:
Firstly, the lack of disciplinary and regulatory control in cases of unprofessional conduct, which were not properly investigated, as well as a lack of co-operation with the law society in investigating disciplinary matters. This has been highlighted in various court cases. Candidate attorneys in the jurisdiction of the Bophuthatswana Law Society were not required to attend the practical legal training course, as the Minister pointed out, which is compulsory under the Act. Also, candidate attorneys of the former Transkei did not enjoy the benefit of practical legal training so that they could claim a reduction in the term of their articles of clerkship.
Secondly, another challenge is that there has been a lot of litigation between the Law Society of Bophuthatswana and the Law Society of the Northern Provinces, because the Law Society of the former Bophuthatswana acted unprofessionally, instead of supervising and ensuring that lawyers did not act unprofessionally.
That law Society also aided and abetted untruthful denials by the practicing lawyers. This unbecoming tale of woe between the Law Society of the Northern Provinces and that of Bophuthatswana created an untenable situation. Therefore, the Bill is very important, because it provides us with an interim measure which will help us to begin real transformation whilst awaiting the full implementation of the Legal Practice Bill. The Bill is also very important because without it the lawyers in the former Bantustans would not be able to practise in other provinces and that would mean that they are disadvantaged within our society.
I think that all the members of the committee, without exception, agreed that it is important that this measure be applied so that it helps us, because the Legal Practice Bill will be implemented in stages. Therefore, by adopting this Bill we make sure that there is smooth and progressive transformation. However, I must also say that we are very happy that the Legal Practice Bill has been signed into law because what has been disturbing to us is that the legal profession itself - very good brains which helped us with formulating the new dispensation - was not able to facilitate the transformation of its own profession. Therefore, we are happy that this measure is supported by all the parties as it will help us close the loopholes as we progressively implement the Legal Practice Bill.
I must say that despite some of the remarks from the left, the Committee of Justice and Correctional Services has men and women who know that they are in that committee to serve the people of South Africa, and they have done that with distinction, without exception. I want to thank you and congratulate you for not betraying the confidence that our people have in us. I thank you very much. [Applause.]
Hon House Chairperson, hon members I am afraid that I am not nearly as good as my colleague the hon Motshekga, drawing a huge amount of detail out of nothing at all, because there is not really a lot to be said about the Attorneys Amendment Bill. It is intended, or rather he managed to fool us all, that this Bill is intended as an interim measure that desires to address the most urgent challenges currently being experienced with regard to the outdated Attorneys Act of 1979, which will eventually be repealed in its entirety.
The aim of the Bill is to protect the public and the legal profession and provide interim relief pending the final enactment of the legal practice legislation, which will obviously take some time.
The Bill deals with various issues but, most importantly, it addresses the disparities in relation to attorneys and candidate attorneys and the training they received in the former Transvaal, Bophuthatswana, Venda and Ciskei, the TBVC, states. It arose principally as a result of court judgments relating to issues with imposing discipline in those areas where those law societies refused to co-operate.
The unification of the rules that govern the legal profession is a measure that is long overdue. The rules governing the profession in the TBVC region are not concurrent with those in the rest of the country and these so- called states ceased to exist a long time ago. The result is that attorneys and candidate attorneys there are distinctly disadvantaged, particularly with regard to training. After the enactment of this Bill the legal profession will be able to look forward to the same protection, education and disciplinary procedures as those in place in the rest of South Africa.
The Bill was prepared principally after it was initiated by the Law Society of the Northern Provinces, but the Law Society of South Africa, the umbrella body, supports the proposed amendments, which in essence address the difficulties being experienced with the regulatory functions. The main focus of the Bill is to restructure and rationalise areas of jurisdiction in the various law societies to provide regulatory measures and uniformity by terminating the continued existence of the TBVC law societies that are still in existence. After the enactment of this Bill all the other law societies will cease to exist and will reform under the Cape Law Society, the Law Society of the Free State, the Law Society of the Northern Provinces and the Law Society of the KwaZulu-Natal.
This Bill was discussed at some length by interest groups and all of them support this Bill as well as the legal profession in general. Bearing in mind that this is an interim measure, there is no reason to not support the Bill in its current form, and we do so. Thank you. [Applause.]
Hon House Chairperson, unlike the Legal Aid Bill, I think this is just one Bill that even if I were present in the committee on mandate from the EFF, I would not have supported because it has nothing to do with the poor. For me, it is one of those things that are a perpetuation of justice for the rich. It is an interim measure, because we are waiting for the final Bill, the Legal Practice Bill, which has taken 12 years to finalise. It took 12 years for the ruling party to negotiate a change to such an important piece of legislation and it is still not final, and because it is not final, we now have interim measures to amend a 1979 Bill.
The research yielded by the Wits Centre for Applied Legal Studies, together with the Foundation for Human Rights, speaks a lot to this issue, because according to them the statistics of the Law Society of South Africa are as follows: 64% White, 36% Black; 37% female, of whom 13% are African. So maybe this piecemeal transformation that is really not getting up and going is explained by the fact that we haven't changed demographics when it comes to the Law Society of South Africa.
This Bill that we are changing, we were told, has been talking about the TBVC lawyers up to now - 2014 - but we were not told the deeper truth. It is not just semantics. If you engaged those lawyers that trained in those TBVC states, which they didn't create, they just found themselves there, they will tell you how they have been experiencing discrimination in terms of being brought into mainstream law societies. So it is just not semantics.
However, for me, another thing about it is, after 12 years of negotiation, who is really in power? We often come here and argue that the ruling party is not in power and they say, no they are. Twelve years to change a legal law? Maybe it explains why there has been so much racial profiling in the legal fraternity.
People argue that we are, as South Africans, where African Americans were in the 60s and that 10 years from now the fruit will tell. This profiling and criminalisation of the African male has happened precisely because there has been no transformation. We are guiding legal issues by means of a 1979 piece of legislation and an hon member has the guts to ask me: What is wrong with legislating with apartheid legislation? So why does the ruling party come here and lambast apartheid all the time if there is nothing wrong with using its laws to govern current society? [Interjections.] Our argument is: Deal with the actual Bill that took 12 years to finalise. We don't need interim measures for another interim Bill that is in itself racist. [Interjections.]
Therefore, as the EFF, we stand here and we say we do not support this interim measure. Let the other Bill be finalised and put into effect. Thank you. [Interjections.] [Applause.]
Hon Chair, the legal profession in this country remains an unlevel and nonuniform playing field. It can be said that the profession has had it too good for too long. From the exorbitant legal fees charged by senior counsel and established law firms to the nonco-operation of some law societies, we see lawyers protected at client expense. With senior counsel charging anywhere between R20 000 and R50 000 per day, and this excludes the daily fee for the instructing attorney, we see adequate legal redress beyond the grasp of all except the very wealthy in our society. We need to level the playing field.
This Bill is a necessary ad hoc measure and will bring urgent relief through the regulatory framework to citizens who have been the victims of unprofessional conduct by unscrupulous attorneys who are registered and being protected from censure and sanction in the former Transkei, Bophuthatswana, Venda and Ciskei, TBVC states. The Law Society of Bophuthatswana is a particular case in point.
The Bill will also regulate and address disparities in relation to attorneys and candidate attorneys in the territories comprising the former TBVC republics. When you have a candidate attorney who is not even required to undergo practical legal training as part of his or her articles of clerkship, you are inviting disaster, the victims being the clients that these candidate attorneys represent in our courts and ultimately the candidate attorneys themselves, for without a proper practical foundation in South African legal practice, one can never hope to build a successful career in law.
The IFP supports the Bill and the efforts of the department in addressing the rationalisation of the legal profession. Our legal profession must be able to be held to public account, scrutiny and sanction as it remains a field in which the ordinary citizen has little knowledge and is left largely at the mercy of his or her legal representatives. I thank you.
Hon House Chairperson, hon Ministers and Deputy Ministers here present, and hon members of the House, section 1, Schedule 6 of the Constitution of South Africa of 1996, which deals with transitional arrangements, makes reference to old order legislation. This is legislation that was enacted before the interim Constitution, Act 200 of 1993. These old order laws are legislative leftovers that reflect South Africa's unpalatable colonial history and apartheid past. The old order laws are inclusive of legislation passed by the former TBVC states. The Attorneys Amendment Bill is an interim measure to repeal such legislation while awaiting full implementation of the Legal Practice Act, which will rationalise the legal profession. This interim measure is important, because we cannot wait any longer to address the inequalities which affect the rights of the appearance in court by attorneys and candidate attorneys who are admitted in the former TBVC states.
There are many sad memories that remind us of our colonial history and apartheid past. One such atrocity is the one caused by the Black Administration Act, which was a tool used by the apartheid regime to effect the removal of African people from the so-called white South Africa and placement in homeland areas. These removals resulted in the immense suffering of the African people. The forced removals of African people from the land which they occupied to the limited amount of land reserved for them by the apartheid state resulted in the majority of African people being dispossessed of their land. The homeland system thus became the most effective tool of the apartheid regime to present South Africa to the world as a nation characterised by racial and ethnic divides.
Four of these self-governing homelands were subsequently converted into so- called independent states. After being declared independent, the so-called states of Transkei, Bophuthatswana, Venda and Ciskei enacted their own legislation. This included legislation regulating aspects of the attorneys', notaries' and conveyancers' professions that were being practised within the respective TBVC states. The four pieces of legislation from the TBVC states which are still in existence are set out in the schedule of the Attorneys Amendment Bill and include the following: the Attorneys, Notaries and Conveyancers Admission Act, No 23 of 1934 of Transkei; the Attorneys, Notaries and Conveyancers Act, No 29 of 1984 of Bophuthatswana; the Attorneys Act, No 42 of 1987 of Venda; and the Attorneys Act, No 53 of 1979 of Ciskei. The Attorneys Amendment Bill seeks to repeal these pieces of legislation, which are now obsolete. These pieces of legislation have no place on our Statute Books or in South Africa's constitutional democracy. They belong to the dustbin of history. In fact, their continued existence is an anomaly, especially now, in 2014, 20 years after the attainment of freedom and democracy and after the creation of a united, progressive and democratic state.
As South Africa celebrates 20 years of freedom and democracy, this Fifth Parliament has no reason not to engage in the radical transformation of the legal profession. It cannot be that after reaching such a huge milestone, we still have laws that drag the country backwards. Of course, we must continue to tell the good story and the good story must become even better by the day.
On 25 January 1994, the people of this country adopted our interim Constitution, which began to operate on 27 April 1994. The interim Constitution provided a platform for the creation of a new order, in which all South Africans share a common citizenship in a sovereign and democratic constitutional state, and where all citizens are entitled to exercise their fundamental rights freely and equally.
Respect for the dignity of all human beings is a particularly important aspect of the South African nation, for apartheid was a denial of a common humanity. Black people were refused respect and dignity, and thereby the dignity of all South Africans was diminished. The new Constitution rejects this past and affirms the equal worth of all South Africans. The recognition and protection of human dignity is the touchstone of the new political order and is fundamental to the new Constitution.
In the light of these constitutional principles, there is no place for pieces of old older legislation. Members of this House, irrespective of political affiliation, should rise in unison and support the Attorneys Amendment Bill so that we can have uniform legislation that applies throughout the country.
The Attorneys Amendment Bill takes the progressive step of repealing, in its entirety, the four TBVC states' Acts in so far as they are still applicable. This prepares the way for the radical transformation envisaged by the promulgation of the Legal Practice Act.
Let us all heed the call to move South Africa forward. I want this House to note this very important development; that for the first time after many moons, the members on my left have forgotten about Nkandla and they are concentrating on service delivery. This is quite commendable. Thank you very much, Chairperson. [Interjections.]
Chairperson, hon members, Ministers, Deputy Ministers ...
Sengibuyile! [I am back!]
The NFP wants to thank the Minister of Justice and Correctional Services for introducing this important debate on the legal profession. We are of the view that this important amendment to the Attorneys Act should have been done a long time ago in order to rationalise the legal profession. We believe that this amendment will also be welcomed by the legal profession and the legal fraternity.
It is not logical that in 20 years of freedom and democracy we still have a profession that somehow still uses the rules and procedures of the so- called homeland governments, or the Transkei, Bophuthatswana, Venda and Ciskei, TBVC states. This amendment will provide a uniform procedure, rules and regulations in the legal profession. We fully support the aims and objectives that this amendment seeks to achieve, which include, amongst others, changing the names of certain law societies and giving effect to constitutional court judgments, like the case of Mabaso v the Law Society of the Northern Provinces and the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development.
Addressing the disparities in relation to attorneys and candidate attorneys applicable to former TBVC states is crucial for bringing equality to this type of profession.
The Law Society of South Africa provides for candidate attorneys that, during their articles of clerkship, attend a school for legal practice which in turn reduces the time for serving articles by six months. The Law Society of Bophuthatswana does not provide for such training. It is for those reasons that we say we support this amendment, one that will do away with such unnecessary disparities, stress and confusion when a candidate attorney has to be admitted as a full attorney. There is a difference between a candidate attorney and an attorney.
I heard some of my colleagues say that when you graduate you then represent people in murder cases. It doesn't work like that. You do your articles, write your board exams, you are admitted, and then you appear in regional courts and you are then able to handle Schedule 6 offences like murder and rape. [Interjections.]
Cha, awukwazi ukuthi akanaso isipiliyoni ebe elwenzile uhlelo lokufundela ubummeli emsebenzini (ama-articles). [No, you cannot say that someone has no experience when they have completed the programme that forms part of studying to becoming a lawyer and has served their articles.]
Hon Minister, we want you to note that we support this Amendment Bill with the hope that the Legal Practice legislation will be finalised quickly. Thank you. [Time expired.] [Applause.]
House Chairperson, all Parliaments face the task of making and unmaking laws. Sometimes it's a pity that some take years. The Balkanisation of our country under apartheid meant that the different TBVC states of yesteryear enacted their own laws regulating the attorneys' profession in certain instances. Some of the laws of former Bophuthatswana and Venda, for example, have remained in existence until the present time. In 1998, government introduced an interim measure to extend insurance cover in the now defunct TBVC areas to protect trust funds administered by attorneys. However, such a measure was still going to raise problems, because South Africa as one country had different requirements in certain areas for the legal profession. [Interjections.]
Chair, it is unfortunate that you try to debate but the noise from this side is such that you can't hear yourself.
The issuing of fund certificates to attorneys and the proper control over trust funds administered by them continued to raise challenges. It was clear that the TBVC legislation continuing into the present could no longer exist side by side with current South African legislation. Changes had to occur, but if we concentrate more in this House maybe the changes would have occurred long ago. The Supreme Court of Appeal asked the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development to consider whether the Law Society of Bophuthatswana served any useful purpose in the present circumstances. That and many other questions prompted the Minister to introduce the present Bill.
This Bill will remove disparities affecting attorneys and candidate attorneys in the territories comprising the former Republics of Transkei, Bophuthatswana, Venda and Ciskei. It will also regulate the engagement of candidate attorneys and their right of appearance in our courts. It is right that citizens can take action against the Attorneys Fidelity Fund in other courts rather than only in the High Court.
Finally, the Bill clears up the areas of jurisdiction of law societies. Sadly, these are interim measures but they will go some distance towards removing disparities and improving the training and functioning of attorneys. Cope supports this long-awaited Bill and requests the Minister to move ahead with the rationalisation that the legal profession and others regard as necessary. I thank you.
House Chair, what does one do when an attorney acts unprofessionally and even unlawfully? Normally, one can lodge a complaint with a law society that should take action against that party, and can even have that attorney struck from the roll. However, what happens when a particular law society not only doesn't take action, but in fact instigates unprofessional behaviour, and aids and abets unprofessional attorneys in making untruthful denials, ignoring laws and court judgments?
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who guards the guards? This is what the Supreme Court of Appeal, SCA, had to deal with, with regard to the Law Society of Bophuthatswana. The Law Society of the Northern Provinces had for years experienced difficulty in exercising its concurrent jurisdiction. There were separate pieces of legislation and there was a lack of proper disciplinary and regulatory control exercised by the Law Society of Bophuthatswana as highlighted by the Supreme Court of Appeal, which said:
It is bad enough for courts to deal with alleged unprofessional conduct of practitioners, but it is a sad day for the legal profession in particular and justice in general if a professional body acts unprofessionally by ignoring the clear law and judgments of competent courts, and by presenting spurious evidence.
In a separate judgment the Supreme Court of Appeal also said:
It is evident that the second respondent is engaged in an unbecoming turf war with the appellant that has led to unnecessary and protracted litigation. It ought to focus its attention on serving the interests of the public by properly regulating the conduct of its practitioners within its area of ... jurisdiction.
This led to Judge Navsa asking the then Minister whether this law society served a useful purpose. That is what resulted in this amendment.
So, while we as the ACDP support this amendment, which effectively dissolves those law societies, we do wish to express our concern that it took so long to deal with this ongoing problem, which was highlighted by the courts three years ago. Regrettably, the public has suffered as their legitimate complaints against attorneys were not dealt with. How many other members of the public have not had their complaints dealt with and that were hidden by particularly the Law Society of Bophuthatswana?
A last point from our side is that it must be noted that the Legal Practice Act will totally overhaul the disciplinary process and at least one lay person will sit on the disciplinary committees. Whilst we as the ACDP had certain concerns about that Act, it will ensure fair and efficient investigation of alleged misconduct against legal practitioners. This is to be welcomed and the ACDP will clearly support this Bill. Thank you very much.
Hon Chair, hon Ministers and Deputy Ministers present, hon members, ladies and gentlemen, the justice system is one of the key priorities and a priority area to build and achieve a national democratic society. The inequalities brought by apartheid's spatial framework had a serious impact on our third sphere of government, which is the judiciary. There was a huge gap between attorneys that had practised in the former homelands and attorneys who had practised in former white-dominated areas.
The government of the ANC seeks to amend the Attorneys Bill to bring synergy to the legal fraternity so as to standardise the sector. We have introduced regulations to this particular Bill that we are speaking about. We are speaking about the right of appearance in court so as to undermine the differentiation in the treatment between attorneys admitted under the Attorneys Act, No 53 of 1979, which applies to candidate attorneys throughout the rest of South Africa. Once implemented, the Legal Practice Act will rationalise the legal profession.
South Africa and her people need a transparent, transformed, public- centered and responsive legal profession. The Legal Practice Act adopts an incremental approach in this regard. Section 8 of the Attorneys Act regulates the appearance of candidate attorneys in court and before other institutions. The regulation seeks to protect candidate attorneys in the former Transkei, Bophuthatswana, Venda and Ciskei states, whose rights of appearance were issued by TBVC law societies, such as Bophuthatswana. Implementing this Bill would bring these laws towards its final termination.
This amendment provides that any candidate attorney entitled to appear in court under the former TBVC laws may continue to appear, despite the fact that those laws will be repealed by this Bill. The candidate attorneys may then apply to one of the existing law societies that have jurisdiction, for a certificate which indicates that he or she complies with the relevant requirements of the Attorneys Act.
The Bill was introduced by the department. It provides for the rights of appearance of former TBVC States attorneys. It said that there will be five years before the commencement of this Bill.
The Portfolio Committee on Justice and Correctional Services debated this matter and decided that the inclusion of a time bar in the clause would be prejudicial. A decision was taken to remove the reference to the five-year time bar by deleting the subclause to avoid any potential prejudice to candidate attorneys from those TBVC States. This regulation will give effect to the decision of the Constitutional Court in the case of Mabaso.
This refers to a case in 2005 of Mabaso vs the Law Society of the Northern Provinces and another. In that case, Justice O'Regan, as she was then, found that the discrimination caused by section 20 of the Attorneys Act, No 53 of 1979, was unconstitutional. In an ordinary procedure for admission and enrolment as an attorney, it is just a substantive ex parte application under section 15 of the Attorneys Act. A court considering such an application must be satisfied that all the requirements set out in the Act have been met, and, in particular, that the applicant is a fit and proper person to be so admitted and enrolled.
Section 20 prescribes a short procedure in this regard. In the case of Mabaso, the Constitutional Court held that the differentiation between attorneys who were admitted under the Attorneys Act and, for instance, those admitted under the former Bophuthatswana and Venda legislation was unacceptable. The Constitutional Court yet again emphasised what progressive forces are saying about equal access as a matter of great importance and making sure that any legislation passed by those homelands are discriminatory. That this discrimination reinforced and perpetuated a pattern of disadvantage, which impaired the fundamental human dignity of the natives.
The introduction of this Bill and its regulation therefore, inter alia, seeks to avoid the perpetuation of such patterns and disadvantage, and the impairment of human dignity. The Bill amends the Attorneys Act in line with the Constitutional Court's judgment in the case of Mabaso. The Bill also provides that any person who was entitled to be admitted and enrolled in terms of the 1984 Bophuthatswana Attorneys, Notaries and Conveyances Act shall continue to be entitled, provided that that person meets the necessary requirements.
I have heard the contribution to the debate by hon member Tshabalala of the EFF. I have been trying to write something about the content of what she had said, but I have written nothing, as in terms of the content, there is nothing she has said. Furthermore, I have to say that the EFF would have supported this Bill if the hon member had attended the meetings of the portfolio committee. She does not attend those meetings.
However, we must note that we have joined an organisation that is turning 103 next year. Part of its role is to make sure that the support given by the majority of the people of South Africa ... to make sure that the laws that were passed 350 years ago are changed with time ... [Interjections.]
Order! Hon Bongo, just wait, please. Hon members, could the member who has continuously been saying "suka" in the House be reminded that this is a House and it needs to be respected, please. That word is derogatory. Thank you. Continue hon member.
I was saying that the ANC inherited a government that had lasted for over 350 years under the rule of the apartheid system. So, in a progressive way we are trying to make sure that we eradicate all those patterns, and also make sure that our people get what they must get. That is why our people are voting for us. Every day, we get the majority vote in Parliament. Thank you very much. [Applause.]
Hon Chair, a lot still needs to be done to address the imbalances of the past, created by the apartheid regime. Our claim of 20 years of democracy means nothing if we preserve the laws that divide this country. We know, as a fact, that some challenges cannot be easily identified until they present themselves in a way that urgently requires the attention of this House and other relevant institutions.
Transition in the laws of this country remains a process that requires every citizen to play an active and meaningful role. As the AIC, we support the Attorneys Amendment Bill, which seeks to address the disparities in relation to attorneys in the four former republics.
While doing that, we also want to stress the need to respect the independence of our judicial institutions as stipulated in the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa. Our courts, including Chapter 9 institutions, meant to strengthen constitutional democracy, must be allowed to exercise their authority without fear or favour. It is this House that must protect and defend these institutions for the public to have confidence in them. I thank you.
Hon Chairperson of the House, hon Minister and Deputy Ministers of Justice and Correctional Services and members of the House, the aim of the Attorneys Bill is to bring about amendments to the Attorneys Act, No 53 of 1979. During the deliberations on the Attorneys Amendment Bill members of the Portfolio Committee on Justice and Correctional Services questioned why, 20 years into democracy, the four law societies in South Africa are still comfortably described in legislation as the Law Society of the Cape of Good Hope, the Law Society of the Orange Free State, the Law Society of the Transvaal and the Natal Law Society.
One thing that I need to indicate to the members on my left who are lamenting is that in a democratic dispensation, especially when you are a legal person, you initiate action concerning what affects you instead of lament.
With regard to the comment by the hon Tshabalala, I want to say that you need to be aware of the huge backlog that we still have in terms of amending the statutes that were created by the apartheid government that divided South Africa into so many republics. We had four additional republics and four additional statutes. Therefore, there is a huge amount of work that still needs to be done. For now, we are busy with this legislation and that doesn't necessarily articulate in our concluding the process. You'll probably find yourself in Parliament, part of the portfolio committee and leaving this Parliament without the process of amending these statutes having been concluded.
The Attorneys Amendment Bill, as introduced, provides for the continued existence of the four mainstream law societies under these older names. The proposed amendments allow for an eventual name change by providing that the four law societies could, by resolution of their members, change their names in accordance with a submission made by the committee. The name change will be gazetted by the Minister. The Department of Justice and Correctional Services indicated that this move was intended to take care of the interim phase pending implementation of the Legal Practice Act, which will create provincial law councils to replace the current law societies.
In actual fact, this step is what will help us so that there can come a time when we do not have to worry about differential treatment within the legal profession. There will come a time when you don't have to worry about discrimination within the legal profession. There will come a time when you don't have to worry about the "old boys' club" in the legal profession.
During the discussions particular concern was expressed about the continued referenced in legislation to apartheid geography and the perception created by the retention of old order names such as Transvaal and Cape of Good Hope. Once the Bill is enacted, the four existing mainstream law societies will be known as the Cape Law Society, no longer Cape of Good Hope; the Law Society of the Free State, no longer the Law Society of the Orange Free State; the Law Society of the Northern Province, no longer the Law Society of the Transvaal; and the Law Society of KwaZulu-Natal and no longer the Law Society of Natal.
Significantly, the Attorneys Amendment Bill also seeks to terminate the continued existence of any society which continues to operate in the former TBVC States. The Transkei, Bophuthatswana, Venda and Ciskei states no longer exist and the remnants of any of the arrangements that came out of the same order should be transformed to be in line with the new democratic and inclusive order and avoid confusion such as the one of the judgement of the High Court of Mabasa vs the Law Society of the Northern Provinces, that was based on the lack of disciplinary and regulatory control in the Bophuthatswana Law Society. The legal fraternity subsequently questioned the continued existence of the Law Society of Bophuthatswana and called on the Minister of Justice and Correctional Services to consider whether it served any purpose.
The department reported that the law societies to be dissolved are largely empty shells and have no or very little infrastructure or personnel. The Attorneys Amendment Bill therefore seeks to dissolve any of the TBVC law societies and amalgamate them with one of the four mainstream law societies in South Africa.
Hon member ...
This will be done in accordance with the arrangements to be made by the Minister by notice of the Gazette, after consultation with the affected TBVC law societies, the Law Societies of South Africa and the law societies into which the dissolving law society is to be amalgamated. The ANC supports the Bill. Thank you, Chairperson. [Interjections.] [Time expired.] [Applause.]
Chairperson, this is a Bill that has taken much too long to come to Parliament. But, part of the problem with it has been that there was an expectation that the Legal Practice Bill would be finalised a lot more quickly.
The Legal Practice Bill, for the hon Litchfield-Tshabalala's information, is an Act now. It has been finalised and assented to by the President. But the Legal Practice Act took a long time to be finalised because there were attempts to get consensus between the attorneys and the advocates. The attorneys and advocates' profession, in terms of the Constitution, are independent. If we force things on them, there will probably be a number of Constitutional Court challenges. You've got to take people along with you.
It reminds me of a tweet I saw earlier in relation to the discussion, from one of your supporters as the EFF, through you Chair, of somebody saying why they are talking about taking 20 years to repeal apartheid laws, Sankara did it in four years. I think it is quite apt, particularly today, with what is happening in Burkina Faso right now, that if you don't build hegemony, if you don't take people with you, then change goes wrong. If you look at what happened to Thomas Sankara and what is happening in Burkina Faso right now, that lesson needs to be learnt. [Interjections.]
I'm disappointed that the EFF is saying that they are not supporting this Bill because it has got nothing to do with the poor. There are two reasons why you should support the Bill. The first one is that this Bill does provide protection to the people in the former self-governing states, or whatever they were called, by ensuring that they fall under the constituted law societies. Some of those people may well be poor. So, again, it's another sound byte to say, "No, this has nothing to do with the poor, and we don't support the Bill".
Secondly, the Bill is required in terms of a court decision. And again there is a contradiction by the EFF - one moment they support the courts and the decisions and the next moment they don't. [Interjections.] You are more than willing to run off to the courts if you think it will help you, but it's very opportunist. Those are two reasons why you should support the Bill. The amendments, as far as the law societies, those law societies have in fact already changed their names some time ago, and the Bill is just basically legislating that those statutory names no longer exist.
In short, this is an overdue Bill. It is overdue because things took a longer with the Legal Practice Act than were expected, and there will still be about another three years before that Act can come fully into effect as attorneys and advocates, amongst others, negotiate in the consultative forum on the powers of provincial councils and so on. It is necessary for short-term relief to ensure that the people living in Bophuthatswana, for example, specifically do have proper regulation of attorneys in their area. I hope that the House will support the Bill. I thank you. [Applause.]
Debate concluded.
Question put.
Bill read a second time.
Consideration of request for approval by parliament of Nairobi international convention on the removal of wrecks, 2007, in terms of section 231(2) of THE Constitution
House Chairperson, hon members, members of the executive who are here, concerning the Nairobi International Convention on the Removal of Wrecks, 2007, both the department and the South African Maritime Safety Authority, Samsa, met and briefed the committee.
The South African Maritime Safety Authority Act, Act 5 of 1998, amongst other things stipulated in the Act, states that there is a need for our seas to be safe. It is also important and crucial to prevent the pollution of our country's maritime space and for it to be free from environmental pollutants.
The Act also states further that there is a need for the country to promote maritime interests.
To realise these aims and objectives mentioned above, the Nairobi International Convention on the Removal of Wrecks seeks to do the following, amongst others: to take measures in accordance with the convention in relation to the removal of wrecks which poses a hazard in the state party area; to take measures to remove a wreck that poses a hazard and cease such measures as soon as the wreck has been removed; to ensure that the rights and interests of the state party, including the state of origin of the ship's registry and any person are upheld and are not interfered with; and to co-operate when the effects of a maritime casualty resulting from the wreck involve a state other then the affected state.
The state parties to the international convention must agree that a wreck, if not removed, may pose a hazard to navigation and to the marine environment. They also agreed that more benefits are to be gained when the same legal regime governs the removal of wrecks is used internationally.
The portfolio committee, deliberated on the convention, and consulted with captains of industry, and consensus and understanding were reached on the implications of the Act. In our discussion as a committee, we considered the fact that there was a need for policy development or legislation that would enable the department to implement this international convention.
Hon members, our geostrategic location in the Southern Hemisphere gives us opportunities to deal with the removal of wrecks along our 3 924 km long coastline. The development of critical industries in this category can easily be realised. As indicated by the President of the Republic, His Excellency hon Jacob Gedleyihlekisa Zuma, at the launch of Operation Phakisa:
An analysis was conducted of nine sectors that comprise South Africa's ocean economy. The ocean has the potential to contribute to the gross domestic product up to R177 billion.
In discussions held at portfolio committee meetings it was also agreed that wreck removal is one of the areas in which we as a country are able to facilitate massive job creation and industries.
Research and development are yet another area that can be used to maximise job creation, as clearly outlined in the National Development Plan, NDP. The department and Samsa will use the Nairobi International Convention, amongst others, on the Removal of Wrecks for skills development and job creation, amongst others. Currently, the state party, which is the Republic of South Africa, incurs costs in the removal of wrecks from our seas and territories. The convention will assist with ensuring that the owners of the wrecked ship or the state party in which the ship is registered will incur the cost of the wreck removal. This will save the state party some money and will assist with income generation.
Members of the House, I move that the Nairobi International Convention on the Removal of Wrecks, 2007, be approved by the House. Thank you.
There was no debate.
Nairobi International Convention on the Removal of Wrecks, 2007, approved.