Hon Chairperson, our objections to this Bill are simple. It is rooted in the patriarchal system of traditional tribunals which the ANC seeks to protect. The traditional court system should be a voluntary system aimed at enabling dispute resolution among those South Africans who choose to live according to these traditions, customs and practices.
In the National Assembly, the ANC refused to include an opt-out provision, and surely under such circumstances this Bill cannot pass constitutional muster.
Furthermore, the Bill also makes no provision for legal representation if a person before such a traditional court so chooses, especially in criminal matters.
Thirdly, this Bill elevates the status of traditional courts to that of courts, rather than it being tribunals as it was originally envisaged.
Any province that supports equal rights for women and children and any province that champions our
constitutional principles and the rule of law cannot reasonably support this Bill. The Western Cape, therefore, will vote against it.
Ms N DUBE-NCUBE (KwaZulu-Natal MEC for Finance): Hon
they need to be subjected to the other laws of the country?
The other issue that we are concerned about is the issue of the costs related to this Bill. You are all witnesses to the fact that, as we sit in KwaZulu-Natal, we are sitting with the dispute that arose as a result of the payment of Izinduna, whereby that Bill was not costed.
these ... at the level of directorate, and all these other staff members that are supposed to be paid. As we sit, we have not even been able to pay the staff from the traditional council. For instance, the staff of Amakhosi,
the administrators that administer the traditional council, as well as the security, the cleaning staff and all other staff that administer our traditional council offices, are not ... paid as we talk. Yet, we are now talking about ... [Inaudible.] ... other staff members that have to be paid.
In this regard, we do not believe that this Bill ... our minds have been applied properly in terms of this Bill having been costed and this Bill having been practical in terms of us realising what we are talking about.
Also, we cannot say that people have got a choice of going to courts. We know that our people cannot afford to go to the High Court when they are not satisfied. We are asking ourselves, why should you create two systems where people, when they are not satisfied, must go to another court? Those are all the issues that we are not satisfied with. Thank you.
Question put: That the Bill be adopted.
IN FAVOUR: Eastern Cape, Free State, Gauteng, Limpopo, Mpumalanga, Northern Cape, North West.
AGAINST: KwaZulu-Natal, Western Cape.
Bill accordingly adopted in accordance with section 65 of the Constitution.