Hon Chairperson, hon Minister, hon Deputy Minister, Justice Yacoob, Justice Lex Mpati, Justice Nkabinde, Justice Mlambo, fellow justices, the Public Protector, Adv Thuli Madonsela, and all members of the justice family present here today, it is my privilege to follow the hon Minister's stirring introductory speech.
On page 13, paragraph 1.5 of the ANC's Policy Discussion document, stands the following:
The independence of the judiciary and the rule of law are the pillars on which the constitutional order is anchored. The separation of powers embodied in our Constitution provides checks and balances to safeguard these values.
Section 165 of our Constitution confirms that the executive may not interfere with the functioning of the courts. Consequently, although the Minister of Justice bears political responsibility for the administration of justice, the Minister may not unilaterally impose norms and standards on the judiciary or act in any other way that could be perceived as interfering with the institutional independence of the judiciary or the impartiality of judges.
What section 165 of the Constitution means is that the Minister of Justice may neither manage court rolls, nor tell individual judges that they need to work longer hours or deliver judgments within a particular time period, because to do so would constitute interference with their independence. However, when judges take months or even years to deliver written judgments, the administration of justice is fundamentally compromised. We are reliably informed that the record for the nonproduction or nondelivery of a judgment is six years. Clearly, this is a violation of the rights of all those affected by such a delay. What was needed therefore was a radical transformation of our system of justice. At its 52nd National Conference, the ANC resolved, among other things, that:
The Chief Justice, as the head of the judicial authority, should exercise authority and responsibility over the development and implementation of norms and standards for the exercise of judicial functions such as the allocation of judges, cases and courtrooms within all courts in the court system.
One of the first steps in this transformation was the President's signing of a proclamation that brought into being the Office of the Chief Justice as a national department. At present, the Portfolio Committee on Justice is seized with the Constitution Seventeenth Amendment Bill and the Superior Courts Bill, which are related to that initiative.
The Constitution Seventeenth Amendment Bill seeks to amend section 165 of our Constitution by, among other things, further defining the role of the Chief Justice as head of the judiciary, thereby seeking to safeguard the independence of the judiciary by clarifying the roles of the head of the judiciary and the Minister of Justice regarding the administration of justice. The Superior Courts Bill seeks to, among other things, rationalise, consolidate and amend the laws relating to the Constitutional Court, the Supreme Court of Appeal and the High Court of SA, and to make provision for administrative and budgetary matters relating to our superior courts.
Essentially, therefore, read together, these two Bills will bestow extensive powers on the Chief Justice insofar as the administration of our courts is concerned. During the committee's recent visit to the South Gauteng High Court, we were faced with the embarrassing situation where the Deputy Judge President of that court could not access court records and case files. It was a totally embarrassing and shameful situation.
In the meantime, the Director-General of Justice has been tasked with seeing to it that the Office of the Chief Justice is capacitated so that it can function once these legislative amendments are effective. In terms of the Budget, the Office was allocated R12 million in 2010-11 and R117 million in 2011-12. It has requested an additional R60 million for the cost of the implementation of these two Bills.
Moreover, the Department of Justice has seconded staff to the OCJ and 60% of the funded posts had been filled by 2011-12. Protocols on the transfer of responsibilities are also being established which, when finalised, will result in the OCJ having its own Budget Vote here in Parliament. To this end, Treasury has been taken on board to ensure a proper, smooth and seamless transfer of responsibilities.
Needless to say, we are excited by these developments in the Office of the Chief Justice and what it means for the transformation of our justice system. We are pleased at the progress made in capacitating the Office of the Chief Justice. We are pleased that during this financial year the Office is assuming responsibility for the Constitutional Court, the Supreme Court of Appeal, the SA Judicial Education Institute, the Rules Board and the Secretariat of the Magistrates Commission.
Last year, we were informed that the judiciary would assume responsibility for case-flow management and has agreed to the introduction of performance targets in courts, including magistrate courts. However, as a committee and Members of Parliament, we remain seriously concerned that case backlogs remain at an unacceptably high level. Case backlogs are hindering service delivery in our courts. Unfortunately, the impact of case backlogs goes far beyond just our court system. In fact, it is one of the major causes of overcrowding in our correctional facilities. Currently, correctional facilities are indicated to be filled to 135% of their capacity.
In an effort to address this, the integrated case management system was rolled out in 2010-11 to 478 lower courts, against a target of 250 cases, and to 12 high courts, against a target of three cases. In addition, this system was rolled out to all 14 Master's Offices and 402 service points. Despite this, the number of case backlogs remains a constant 37 000. Moreover, the NPA statistics also show a disappointing decline in cases completed or finalised in 2011-12.
We note the fact that the department has been allocated R77 million to help resolve this. This amount must be used effectively to reduce these backlogs. This must be done in consultation and co-operation with other stakeholders, particularly the NPA.
As part of our oversight responsibility, the Portfolio Committee on Justice is seriously considering fitting into its programme a joint oversight visit with the Portfolio Committee on Correctional Services to correctional facilities in Gauteng, with special emphasis on awaiting-trial prisoners. We want to see for ourselves the impact that case backlogs have on our prison system. Only in this way can we assist in ensuring that all people in South Africa are safe and feel safe. [Applause.]