Thank you. Now, turning to other aspects relating to the portfolio, I think the first point that I wanted to make, Minister, is that we have a very good relationship with the officials from the department. They attend meetings regularly, they quite clearly care about the job they are doing - this is now the officials that we interact with. They are conscientious, they go the extra mile in responding to the queries or issues that we raise, or the work that we give them to do. So, I would like to praise the department in their interaction with the portfolio committee.
I would like to congratulate Director-General Msomi on her appointment, and to say that in the short time she has been here, we have also been very impressed with her interaction with the portfolio committee and for giving it time in what must be a busy schedule. We worked very well with the regulations on the Child Justice Bill in getting that resolved and getting regulations that everybody could accept. Generally, when we sit in the portfolio committee, the reports from the department and from the National Prosecuting Authority, NPA, are good. The plans are good. The attempts to address the problems are good.
The problem is that on the ground things are often different. Minister, I read a report of your unannounced visit to certain courts, and read that you came across a number of complaints from ordinary people. They were not getting the service that they were expecting - officials were rude, unhelpful, and could not be bothered, in some cases. This is something that we need to come to grips with. It is a pity that we in the portfolio committee, because of our legislative and other loads, have not had enough time to get out into the courts to do unannounced visits ourselves.
We have got to look at engaging with these officials to establish what the problems are. We also need to look at what they are saying. Why are they unhelpful? Why are they being rude? Is it that they do not like their jobs, and if so, are they frustrated? Why are they frustrated? Is it by bureaucracy, by policies that they do not like, by supervisors? There is a slogan of government: Together we can do more. I think we need to look at that in the Justice context, not just with senior officials, but with officials on the ground. We need to engage and involve them in improving the quality of justice that is given.
Some time ago we, as the committee, conducted oversight visits to courts. One of the lessons seemed to be that those courts where people spoke to each other, where everybody spoke to each other and where there were meetings of the magistrates, the prosecutors, the administrative staff, often involving the police, were the courts that worked the best. And the courts where the parties were not talking to each other and engaging each other were the courts where people seemed to be the unhappiest. So, I think that that is something that I would really recommend.
Hon Minister and members, lawyers are not known for their small egos, and in the justice system falling under your department, you have got a number of role-players, some of whom have fairly large egos. [Laughter.] You have the department itself, the NPA, and the different sections within it, Legal Aid South Africa, the court administration, the magistrates and the judges. I think it was the Deputy Minister who spoke about how long it had taken to actually finalise the Child Justice Act. Things do take a long time, and I think it is because of the different role-players in the whole system. If we are going to get things through, we need to make sure that all the role-players work together and co-operate. Something should not be foisted on one group by another. It basically means that there should be communication and consultation. I am very pleased, Minister, with the Superior Courts Bill, that there has been engagement with the judiciary, and I hope that, in the processing of the Bill by Parliament through our committee, we will continue that.
Those are the two recommendations I would make in terms of improving the justice system, ensuring that the role-players consult and work together, and ensuring that even the officials at the coalface of delivery are involved and are taken along.
I then want to raise some issues relating to special courts. The debate relating to special courts seems to have swung to and fro. There are arguments in favour of the idea that there are categories of crimes that are complicated and require a specific knowledge of the law, both statute and case law, on the part of the prosecutors and presiding officers, and therefore you need expertise to build up. There are arguments against that idea - which, I think, mainly seem to be coming from the presiding officers - that prosecutors and magistrates should be trained and have the ability to deal with any offence.
The problem is, from a defendant's point of view, if you are accused in a court, and if you have the money, you will go to a legal representative who is skilled in that area of law in respect of which you have been charged. So, it makes sense that there should be expertise built up from the prosecutors' and magistrates' sides. Indications seem to be that specialised courts are effective. I am told we have 10 commercial crime courts; they have a conviction rate of 92,8%.
The problem seems to be with the sexual offences courts, where the numbers seem to be declining. Aside from the expertise as to the rules of evidence, there are special skills needed, particularly by a prosecutor - how to lead a witness who has been raped, for example, or how to lead a child. You may have intermediaries. You may have evidence given on video camera. So, I would urge that the issue of special courts needs to be looked at. We need to go back to increasing the number of special courts, particularly for sexual offences. It is necessary. It is something that we can debate, but if there are problems, let us have a debate about it. Let us get it resolved.
When it comes to the judiciary and the magistracy, in the past, the committee has engaged the magistracy and the judiciary through the Chief Justice coming and speaking to the committee. I think it is something that we should look at again, not, obviously, to impede upon the independence of the judiciary, but to hear from the Chief Justice and the Magistrates' Commission what their views are about the work that we are doing. Thank you. [Time expired.]