Chairperson, Minister, Deputy Minister, Chief Justice, Deputy Chief Justice, Public Protector, Chair of the Human Rights Commission, hon members, I rise as the last ANC speaker in this debate in support of the budget for the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development.
I would like to start by responding to some of the issues that some of the opposition parties raised. For those members who are not members of the Justice committee or who are members but do not attend meetings, we work very well in the Justice committee on a multiparty basis. Basically, everybody speaks, everybody gets listened to, and the views of any member, whether they be from the majority party or the opposition, get taken seriously and take effect. It is a pity, but, I suppose, understandable, that parties have to come here and start politicking. I suppose that that is what they feel they need to do.
I want to deal with two issues that parties raised. Maybe before that, I would like to congratulate the Minister on signing his performance agreement. Perhaps we, as members of the Justice committee, should look at whether to sign performance agreements. Maybe we could start with the hon member from the IFP, the hon Van der Merwe, who could probably put the following into his performance agreement: "attend at least one meeting of the Justice committee per year." ... [Laughter.] ... Because he has not attended any.
Usually, we see him during the Budget Vote. It is a pity we do not see him here today. I do not know if he is sick or if he has some court case in his practice, but anyway, welcome, hon Singh. It is nice to have you here, but maybe you should look at the performance of your hon Chief Whip - he has not attended one meeting. His alternative, Mr Oriani-Ambrosini, attends, but he is only an alternative, and he runs between many committees, I know.
Going on to the issue of the National Prosecuting Authority, NPA, I think it is clear that we need further debate on the matter. It is a pity that members have raised issues here when the National Director is here but cannot defend himself and cannot speak. One of the members who raised issues, the hon Ntapane, was not even there when the National Prosecuting Authority appeared before the committee. I think it is clear - we need further discussion, and I think we need to discuss again what is actually meant by the National Prosecuting Authority and the issue of independence.
The hon Smuts surprises me. I mean, she was there when the Constitution was drafted. She knows, I presume, that in many authorities of the Commonwealth, the head of the prosecuting authority forms part of the executive. It is a political appointment, and that is also true in America. I think that it may be olde worlde, but that is what happens in most other countries. The prosecuting authority is an extension of the executive. What happens is that the prosecuting authority needs to exercise its functions and make decisions on whether to prosecute or not, without fear or favour.
The authority itself, however, is not independent. That is why the Constitution does not say anything about the prosecuting authority being independent. You may wish it, but it does not say that. It says "national legislation must ensure that the prosecuting authority exercises its functions without fear, favour or prejudice". It does not say, "independent", as it does with the courts; and let me just help you, the courts are independent and subject only to the Constitution.
If the intention was that the prosecuting authority was to be independent, as you put it, why did the Constitution not say that? Instead it stresses a role for the National Director. We have had these accusations of his interference, which were explained when he came and spoke before the committee. The same goes for the role of the Minister. Perhaps we need to debate these things again, but it is interesting that, suddenly, there is this wish that the prosecuting authority be independent, which it is not. So, let us debate that further.
The other issue is the question of the Judicial Service Commission, JSC. It is worrying that there is a tendency that has come up, where judges seem to have lobbyists, or people seem to have lobbyists for them to be judges. Unlike when you started in Parliament, hon Smuts, the appointment of judges is not a political appointment by the President on his or her own. Judges are appointed on the recommendation of the JSC as set out in the Constitution.
I think it is wrong that parties ...