Chairperson, Minister and Deputy Minister, I rise on behalf of the ANC in support of the budget of the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development.
At the outset, let me start by saying that we have had good co-operation from the department and the bodies which the committee performs oversight over, particularly the National Prosecuting Authority. Although there are a number of challenges, we've been able to work well together to try to overcome them.
The issues that I've been asked to speak on are the National Prosecuting Authority, NPA, and the Special Investigating Unit, SIU. With regard to the National Prosecuting Authority, I think the committee's report deals, in some detail, with the main concerns. But maybe I could just highlight one or two of the concerns. Firstly, there is the concern that the budget which the NPA is receiving is approximately 7% less in real terms than it received in previous years. So, that is of concern, given the pressure the NPA is under.
Other colleagues have spoken about the qualified audits and the concern that with the NPA they continue. I would want to urge the director-general of the department and the national directorate to ensure that, at least from the NPA's side, those qualified audits end and we get unqualified ones.
A further issue of concern that the committee noted is the issue of informal mediations, and this is basically a category that seems to have popped up in terms of which matters don't go to trial because of informal mediation. The committee has basically called for a statutory regulation office; much the same has happened with the plea-bargaining process. It can happen, but it needs to be regulated.
That is linked to some of the issues that have been of more popular public interest in subsequent decisions around who to prosecute and who to give immunity from prosecution, in the event of using their evidence against some other person.
With regard to the Brett Kebble case, I know that the current national director inherited this case. But what happened there versus the process being followed with the Anni Dewani murder case is that the Dewani murder case seems much more preferable as suspects were not given immunity, but will actually have to face the full might of the law.
With regard to the SIU, there was a lot of media coverage when the SIU came to the committee to be present for their budget examination. A lot of attention was given particularly to the large extent of the investigation they were conducting in the country and the extent, effectively, of corruption, and that is both worrying and depressing.
What wasn't really given attention was how the commitment of the ANC government to fighting corruption is borne out by the fact that this unit, which is successful, has been receiving a considerable increase in funding. While the NPA's budget has gone down, a point I raised earlier, the SIU will receive an effective 7,99% increase in their budget over last year - R193,62 million. By way of comparison, the figure was only R103,1 million in 2007-08.
The staff has grown from 67 to 600 in nine years. Over the past 12 months, the unit received an unprecedented 20 presidential proclamations of new matters that had to be investigated.
So it is important to highlight that, I think, because if anyone needs to look for an intention on the part of government to fight corruption, this is definitely borne out by the resources being given to the SIU to continue the valuable work they are doing. I want to make a few points regarding the work of the portfolio committee, and I want to thank the chairperson and my colleagues in the committee for the way we are able to work well together, collegially, and I think particularly when it comes to doing oversight over both the department and legislation. We are able to come up with a largely fruitful consensus with a good product. I think the hon Kohler-Barnard would find the committee boring from what I hear about her committee, or the way she behaves in her committee.
Unfortunately, when it comes to plenary debates, people feel the need then to politic a bit more. I would like to respond to some of the issues that some of my colleagues from other parties have raised. A lot of Ms Smuts' speech really resembled what one would expect from the first reading debate on the Superior Courts Bill, rather than on the departmental budget.
Maybe the other comment to make is on the issue of representivity. What else can one expect from a party whose leader continues to appoint an all- male cabinet in the Western Cape? [Interjections.] It's not an issue of "Ag, shame"; it's an issue of representivity. [Interjections.] Well, I wish I could say it's new, but she keeps doing it again and again.
As far as Ms Adams' input is concerned, she made reference to popular revolts, quoting Professor Pierre de Vos. Now, we have just had elections and, unfortunately, for those wanting popular revolts, we are in a democracy. People go to the polls every five years for national elections and every five years for local government elections. We have just had local government elections. Everybody said they were free and fair, yet you, Ms Adams, still want to talk about popular revolts. I think it is important that you really look at the issue of democracy and how the will of the people is expressed through the ballot box.
You then spoke about the importance of educating people about bail, which I agree with, but I wish we could also educate people about the need for due process. You know the public may want somebody who has done something bad to be punished immediately, but there needs to be hearing. And, after that hearing, they will be given an opportunity to appeal.
So regarding your comment about the fact that people are still employed, due process needs to be followed. And then you may make various references to ... You use the term "laughing stock". I think a key comment to make is that when it comes to Parliament and physical parties in Parliament, one could find no better laughing stock than Cope. [Laughter.]
Lastly, I want to deal with the issue that came up of the extension of the term of office of the Chief Justice. A number of speakers made reference to the fact that they thought the President had acted incorrectly. Let me just read the law. Section 176(1) of the Constitution states:
A Constitutional Court judge holds office for a nonrenewable term of 12 years, or until he or she attains the age of 70, whichever occurs first ...
Then, there was an amendment put in - maybe the hon members or those complaining about this haven't seen it; it was in 2001 - which would, except for an Act of Parliament, extend the term of office of a Constitutional Court judge.
In the same year, at the same time in fact, the Judges' Remuneration and Conditions of Employment Act was passed, which said specifically in section 8(a): A Chief Justice who becomes eligible for discharge from active service in terms of section 3(1)(a) or 4(1) or (2), may, at the request of the President, from the date on which he or she becomes so eligible for discharge from active service, continue to perform active service as Chief Justice of South Africa for a period determined by the President, which shall not extend beyond the date on which such Chief Justice attains the age of 75 years. I think it's common knowledge that our current Chief Justice is 58. [Interjections.]
Now, everybody says ...