Deputy Speaker, Deputy Ministers and Ministers, hon members and fellow South Africans, when the democratic government came into power in 1994, it took over an unjust justice system that was never meant to administer justice but to protect and preserve apartheid; that is why investigations into the murders of Steve Biko, Samora Machel and other brutal murders were never finalised. It is therefore correct for me to start by saying we are correcting deep and entrenched systemic errors.
It was in recognition of these historical realities that the former President, Thabo Mbeki and the current President, hon Jacob Zuma, called on us to establish a transformed, integrated, modernised, properly resourced and well-managed criminal justice system.
The Bill before the House is as such a product of an involved process which was led by the hon Johny De Lange as the then Deputy Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development, and now by Minister Jeff Radebe. This Bill was introduced to Parliament by Minister Jeff Radebe and referred to the Portfolio Committee on Police for processing. At the time when it was being referred to the Portfolio Committee on Police, it included parts on fingerprints, body prints, photographic images and deoxyribonucleic acid which is known as DNA.
It must be noted that the Bill had previously been considered in 2008 and early 2009 by an ad hoc committee which decided that there were a number of areas that raised the potential for a constitutional challenge. Following extensive deliberations, the Portfolio Committee on Police agreed on the fact that the Bill was an important piece of legislation that would bring some progress in the integration of the criminal justice system as well as the fight against crime.
Furthermore, the Portfolio Committee on Police noted that to process the Bill in its then current form was problematic and could take a much longer time or even have delays. The portfolio committee then resolved to split the Bill into two phases. In the first phase, the Bill deals with aspects of the fingerprints, body prints and photographic images.
We believed then, as we believe even more now that it was possible to process this aspect as quickly as possible without serious challenges and pass it into law. Today's debate indeed marks the culmination of this resolution.
Whilst not at all abandoning the DNA part, we resolved to process it as a second phase of the Bill. We resolved that the processing of the second phase of the Bill, that is the DNA aspect, should be preceded by the following, which was informed by the many submissions that had been received: firstly, benchmarking ourselves with other countries that have the same legislation as well as the Bill of Rights; secondly, a comparative study to be undertaken by our research unit; and thirdly, a study tour to countries that have the legislation on DNA together with the Bill of Rights.
Following our visit to the Forensic Laboratory in Pretoria, early this year, we are more convinced that our decision was perfectly correct. The fact that the European Court of Human Rights, in a landmark judgement delivered in December 2008, decided that the United Kingdom policy of retaining the DNA samples and profiles of innocent people is indiscriminate and unlawful, also justified our decision to split the Bill.
Assisted by our research unit, we have since identified two countries that have the best DNA services in the world, namely Canada and the UK. We hope to go to these two countries in October, this year, as part of our second phase of processing the Bill.
Looking at the Bill before us today, I just want to remind members in the simplest language that, as we speak, today, when a criminal commits a crime, like breaking into somebody's house, police may take fingerprints. I say, "may" because section 37 of the Criminal Procedure Act, Act 51 of 1977, does not make the taking of fingerprints compulsory even in instances where a person has been convicted of an offence.
But say fingerprints are lifted from the crime scene, they will be checked against the limited number of fingerprints from convicted offenders that have been included in the SAPS database. If they match any fingerprint, well, good luck for SAPS and victims; if they do not match they will be stored and wait for the arrest of a suspect whose fingerprints will then match them. If no suspect is arrested, hard luck for the police and the victims; those fingerprints will remain in the SAPS database and that is it.
This Bill seeks to make it compulsory for the police officials to take fingerprints or to cause fingerprints of any arrested person to be taken upon any charge; any person released on bail; any person upon whom summons have been served; and any person convicted by a court of law. The Bill also aims to strengthen the forensic investigative powers and the capacity of