Information Regulator 2020/21 Annual Report

Meeting report

Information Regulator’s Annual Report for the 2020/21 financial year presentation
Mr Mosalanyane Mosala, Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Adv Dirontsho Mohale, Executive of the Protection of Personal Information Act (POPIA), Mr Mukelani Dimba, Executive Education and Communication, Ms Varsha Sewlal, Executive Legal, Policy, Research and Information Technology (IT) Analysis, Ms Helen Gugu Shube, Executive Corporate Research, Mr Prakash Marismulu, Chief Financial Officer (CFO), Mr Ntsumbedzeni Nemasisi, Executive of POPIA, at the Information Regulator presented to the Committee.

Operational Framework
The Regulator informed the Committee that it does not produce separate Annual Financial Statement for the 2020/21 financial year as its financial records form part of the AFS of the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development (DoJ&CD) and are audited by the Auditor-General as part of the Vote of the DoJ&CD. The CEO is the Accounting Officer in terms POPIA but not yet in terms of the PFMA due to the fact that the Regulator’s budget is managed through the DoJ&CD. It was making steady progress in the establishment of the Regulator as an independent body. 

The listing of the Regulator in the Public Finance Management Act 1 of 1999 (PFMA) remains unresolved. The separation of the Regulator from the DoJ&CD, which will ensure the independence of the Regulator, is dependent on this classification. Consultations with the DoJ&CD and National Treasury were held during the year under review

Highlighted of achievement 2020-2021
-Maintenance of administrative and financial operations despite the work-from-home arrangements during the first two months of the financial year as a result of Covid-19 pandemic.
-The Regulator made a submission to the Select Committee on Security and Justice of the National Council of Provinces on the proposed amendments to section 16 of the Electoral Act 73 of 1998- Clause 8 of the Electoral Amendment Bill.
-Presidential proclamation was issued to bring into operation the remaining sections of POPIA on 1 July 2020. The proclamation also brought into operation sections 110 and 114 (4) of POPIA on 1 July 2021. -The Regulator heightened the use of digital meetings and social media platforms to ensure continuous engagement with stakeholders and the public.
-The Regulator organised webinars to commemorate the International Day for Universal Access to Information on 28 September 2020 and the Data Privacy Day on 28 January 2021. The Regulator adopted the Guidelines to Develop Codes of Conduct, and the standard for making and dealing with complaints under approved codes of conduct provided for in section 65 of POPIA.

Concerns
The number of security compromises in South Africa continue to rise at an alarming rate, (e.g. the Experian major security breach, the Regulator commissioned an investigation of the Experian breach). The Regulator engaged with WhatsApp on the non-compliance of the proposed policy with the provisions of POPIA following the public outcry regarding the policy.
 
Budget
During the year under review the Regulator received additional financial resources to carry out its mandate. The budget allocation was increased from R31,3 million in the 2019/20 financial year to R45,4 million in the 2020/21 financial year.
 
Reasons for under-expenditure
Under spending on compensation of employees was a result of delays in filling the positions of the executives for POPIA and Education & Communication, and resignations of three staff members. Underspending on Goods and Services was due to a delay in Communication and Branding Strategy service provider (appointment was done in March 2021), and due to lack of utilisation on Travelling and Subsistence, Stationery and Printing, and Training and Development. Overspending on Household payments is due to unplanned resignations of staff. Underspending on Machinery and Equipment was due to commitments on office furniture and equipment received but not paid for. Underspending on Software and Intangibles was due to the bidder’s price on the Automated Complaints Management System being greater than the budget amount. Therefore the bid could not be considered.

Actions to mitigate under-expenditure in 2021/22

-Fill the remainder of all the vacant funded positions in Phase 3 and selected vacant funded positions in Phase 4 in order to reduce the expected under-expenditure on Cost of Employment (CoE).

- Ensure all service providers deliver goods and services by due date
Pay invoices within 30 days of delivery (on track).

-Reprioritise budget to ICT projects in 2021/22 as part of Adjusted ENE (August 2021).

-Ensure all SCM demand management is concluded by December 2021

Human Resources
At the beginning of the financial year we had 13 positions which were filled as part of Phase One which had started in the financial year 2019/2020.
In addition to the Phase One positions we added twenty one positions: 19 positions are part of Phase Two and two positions are part of Phase Three of the structure. Staff compliment increased to 34. As at the year end, the Regulator had finalised a list of 43 positions that form part of Phase Three of the structure.

Human Resource Priorities included the implementation of Phase Two of the Organisational Structure; finalisation of phase three list of positions; and Development of Human Resource policies.

(See Presentation)

Discussion
Ms N Maseko-Jele (ANC) welcomed the progress made. A lot of work had been done. The Regulator was being given the opportunity to improve on the targets where there was under-performance to prepare itself for the next report. COVID-19 was currently manageable; the Committee would expect change going forward, specifically improvement of some of the targets. The issue of under-expenditure was concerning. She hoped this would be resolved by bringing the two Acts ‘under one roof.’ She suggested that the Regulator needed to increase awareness in communities, so that issues could be reported.

Adv G Breytenbach (DA) noted that there was a draft policy for risk management in place – had the policy been finalized and was it being monitored? Did it include a mitigation plan on IT security? The Regulator wanted to implement a separation strategy from the Department of Justice. This was identified as an urgent intervention to ensure the Regulator’s independence, yet it was placed on the ‘back-burner’ with a timeframe of 2023 to 2024. Why would it take so long and had the strategy been costed? What was the progress with the devolution of functions on this? At their previous meeting, it was noted that full information about the ransomware attack on the Department of Justice had not been forthcoming. The Information Regulator had no idea how much, and what, personal information of South African citizens had been compromised. How was this very unsatisfactory situation being addressed?

Dr W Newhoudt-Druchen (ANC) thanked the members of the Regulator for the work done over the past term, many of whom were the founding members. She asked why the two targets highlighted in red on slide 44 were not achieved. The issue with WhatsApp was serious. Had the Regulator received a response from WhatsApp/Facebook? If a response was received, what was it? She appreciated that the manual of the Promotion of Access to Information Act (PAIA) had been made accessible in different languages and braille. She requested that the manual be made available in South African Sign Language, as there were many deaf people who would prefer to get access to information in South African Sign Language, but it was not available. The videos could be put on YouTube or Twitter in South African Sign Language.

What role did the Regulator play during COVID-19, particularly around data protection? What role did the Regulator play at the start of the pandemic with all the fake news being distributed and people not knowing what to believe? What role could the Regulator play in future to prevent such misinformation? Did the ransomware attack affect the Information Regulator?

Mr W Horn (DA) stated that unfortunately if one looked at the frustrations and delays that had earmarked the operationalisation of the Regulator, the fact that the Committee was informed that this was something that the Regulator now ‘hoped’ would be resolved in 2021/22 financial year was simply not good enough. The Committee should consider trying to assist the process by asking all involved to come to the Committee and explain the reasons for the delay and provide clear timeframes of when this would be settled. What was the practical effect of the hack on the Regulator’s own functionality, as the Regulator was still housed on the IT and web systems of the Department of Justice? What levels of functionality had been restored at the Regulator.

The registration of information officers had to be done before 1 July 2021; he noted that there had been an online portal. He saw press releases leading up to the end of June 2021 to indicate that the online portal was overwhelmed, or not properly functional, and that people had to revert to a paper-based system of registering. Had that process properly unfolded? Were all information officers registered that wanted to do so? Were there any figures available about how many people had registered, and according to their own analysis, how many companies/entities had failed to do so? Was there any process of engagement with companies and businesses big and small to ensure compliance with that requirement?

Dr Newhoudt-Druchen asked if the position of the Chief Executive Officer was still under secondment or was it a permanent position.

The Chairperson stated that the Committee had received a letter from one of the employees at the Regulator, a part-time member, who had raised serious issues about not being paid on time and in certain instances being short-paid. What was the problem, did it lie with the Regulator or was it with the Department of Justice? How could the Committee assist so that the matter got resolved? From the letter it seemed that the matter had been going on for some time.

Adv Pansy Tlakula, Chairperson, Information Regulator addressed the Chairperson’s question and stated that the problem lay with the Department of Justice. One of the problems was the rate at which the part-time members were being paid. The fundamental problem involved both part-time and full-time members. The Act stated that the remuneration, allowances, privileges and benefits of members would be determined by the Minister of Justice, in consultation with the Minister of Finance. When appointed, employees received letters of appointment. That simply spoke about remuneration and not about benefits. The Regulator had engaged with the Minister of Justice on that. The Minister’s consent would determine the rate at which the part-time members should be paid. That had not been done.

In the case of the Member that the Chairperson had spoken about, the rate had been changed and was determined by officials in the Department of Justice. The officials seemed to change the rate ‘as and when they felt like it.’ This issue had been raised with the Minister. That member had originally received an appointment letter that stated that the rate at which he was paid was that of a ‘matric labourer ‘– this was quite an insult. As the officials in the Department of Justice changed, the rate seemed to change. The CEO had been at pains trying to resolve the matter with the officials in the Department of Justice. The assistance of the Committee on this issue would be greatly appreciated. The Minister’s view was that the officials should be paid according to the Deputy Director General (DDG) level or Director General (DG) level, and the associated benefits should be allocated to them. That needed to be covered in the Act. This issue had applied to her position as well. She did not know how many leave days she was entitled to or the benefits she would have been entitled to.

The Chairperson stated that the situation was quite serious. The Committee needed to ensure that the incoming Commission did not have to deal with these issues; this needed to go into the Committee’s report to the House. The Minister needed to appear before the Committee and explain the issue. Institutions could not be treated in that way, where there was five-year full-term in office without defined benefits – it could not work and it should not be expected to work. This was a straightforward issue – ‘who worked without defined benefits?’ He suggested the Committee come back to this issue once the Regulator had presented.
 

Adv Tlakula stated that after the member wrote to the Minister, it was the first time a response was received from the Minister and the response was to the effect that the benefits that were applicable to the DG and DDG applied. The Minister had also said that there needed to be a committee that determined remuneration, benefits and standardised them across the agencies of the Department of Justice. However, this did not apply to the Regulator, as it was not an agency of the Department of Justice, the Act was clear that the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Justice needed to decide this. This was where the matter ended. It would help to have the Committee’s assistance with this issue as it had been very painful.

The Chairperson suggested that such issues should have been resolved before people assumed office. He highlighted the issue of devolving powers that was raised by Mr Horn and Adv Breytenbach, what of the human resource and IT functions were still linked to the Department of Justice.

Adv Tlakula said that the CEO would respond to those issues but some progress had been made. One of the other issues the Regulator would like the Committee’s assistance with was the issue of listing. Progress had not been made on that. The Regulator had written to the new Minister to bring the matter to his attention and make a proposal on how the Regulator could be listed, because it had been at an impasse for a long time. The Regulator’s proposal was that the Public Finance Management Act (PFMA) should be amended and the Regulator should be put under ‘constitutional bodies.’ ‘Constitutional bodies’ were simply defined as bodies that were listed in schedule one in the PFMA. For all intents and purposes the Regulator acted like a constitutional body. No response had been received from the Minister – this would be followed up.

The Chairperson asked for clarity on interactions with the previous Minister of Finance and Treasury on the issue. Why had the separation taken so long?

Adv Tlakula responded that no one had taken a decision. The last time they dealt with the Minister was around issues of the organisational structure. At the time Treasury had decided that the establishment of the structure was dependent on the listing. Until the organisation was listed, the Regulator could not appoint people etc. The Minister separated the two issues, first establish the organisation and then deal with the listing. Various meetings had taken place with the officials. She had escalated this matter because the Minister needed to deal with it, the assistance of the Committee would be welcomed.

The Chairperson asked how the Regulator was expected to fight ‘giants’ like WhatsApp, if basic issues could not be dealt with. Where would the money to fight WhatsApp be sourced?

Adv Tlakula stated that the Regulator had the money, WhatsApp would not be taken to court, but the Regulator would not let WhatsApp get away with it. Matters could be taken to the Enforcement Committee. She highlighted that the under-expenditure issue was concerning for them – this was being watched closely. The Regulator fought hard to get extra resources in the midst of the current crisis, with the assistance of the Committee, and could not be in a situation where it had not been spent.

The independence issue had been pushed off precisely because it was linked to the listing matter. The Regulator functioned as a fully independent institution but needed to be listed in the PFMA. Until that matter was resolved the Regulator would operate as a ‘regional office’ of the Department of Justice. The CEO was no longer seconded; he was employed on a full-time basis in July 2021. The previous CEO had resigned after a year and the new CEO was appointed.

Adv Johannes Collen Weapond, Full-time Member, Information Regulator, stated that during the year under review, there were panels that were supposed to be established or personnel and members that were meant to assist with the interviews. That process of establishing the panels and the advertisements had been delayed, which contributed to the under-expenditure. Until the appointments took place the under-expenditure would be incurred. The separation was long overdue, there were separation plans that the Regulator had put in place, the operationalisation needed to happen, which was taking time. The Regulator would ensure that it put the processes and systems in place so that the separation happened seamlessly, because it frustrated internal processes and caused the Regulator to over-rely on the systems of the Department of Justice.

Ms Alison Tilley, Part-time Member, Information Regulator, responded to the question about WhatsApp. A response was received from WhatsApp, which outlined their view on the legislation that was applicable. The Regulator disagreed with them on this and had sought an opinion on that. The Regulator had since written back to WhatsApp in line with that opinion. WhatsApp had some time to respond, the deadline was in December 2021. The costing of the separation had taken place – she took the point that a current costing would be important. Since the breach at the Department of Justice, the Regulator had appointed a Chief Information Officer (CIO). The Regulator would be in a better position to deal with some of the questions about how it was dealing with information security, mitigation plans and monitoring risk in the new year.

Adv Tlakula stated that the Regulator was in the process of appointing an expert to investigate that breach because the Department of Justice had not been forthcoming about what personal information had been impacted. If the Regulator did its own investigation, the causes and extent would be known.

Mr Mosala responded to the question about risk management. The Regulator had appointed a risk official. A lot of work had since been done in that area. The first was to setup a control environment division by division. Weaknesses had been identified in the control environment, the core work of the organisation and support areas, such as finance and Human Resources (HR). This helped the Regulator come up with strategies to close those gaps. Having noted the deficiencies in some areas, the risk management process for each division was started. Each division had a risk register that identified all the risks per division. A workshop would be held where the top risks from the lists would be highlighted. The issue of finalising the policy was something that was currently being finalised. The policy should not stop the Regulator from identifying areas where more work could be done and mitigation strategies implemented.

He responded to the question about the devolution of functions. At an operational level the DG of the Department of Justice had been engaged with. A Memorandum was sent to the DG. The DG approved some of the powers that could be devolved to the Regulator in the meantime. When the Regulator procured for anything more than R1 million, permission was needed; this was affecting their ability to procure on time. In HR, the Regulator’s ability to appoint people independently had been devolved to the Regulator. Procurement could be captured on their system but the Regulator still did not have the authority to approve on the system, an official from the Department of Justice was needed. The IT system had been setup, where the Regulator had its own email addresses.

Adv Mohale responded to the question about the registration of information officers. The online portal had not worked out so well. The Regulator had resorted to manual registration of information officers. There were currently 11 interns that were processing those notifications. When the ransomware occurred with the Department of Justice, the Regulator could unfortunately not access those emails. There were around 49 000 emails that were stuck in the Department of Justice’s email, while some information officers had registered on the portal. Many notifications came in manually and others came through directly from certain employees of the Regulator. There were to date 8 853 notifications. The measurable achievement was the number of certificates issued to the responsible party. 8 260 Certificates had been issued to information officers. At this point the Regulator did not have a single database of all public and private bodies and not all private bodies were registered – so the Regulator could not tell how many there should be. The solution would be to assess this when the Regulator went out and monitored and liaised with responsible parties. It would be checked it the body had appointed somebody and if they were registered. This would also be when the Regulator would assess if the person was the appropriate person to be an information officer or deputy information officer according to their functions and capabilities.

Mr Nemasisi noted the suggestion that because there was now the PAIA manual in braille, South African Sign Language should also be considered. Planning for the new financial year had started, this would be included in their Annual Performance Plan (APP) for the new financial year to ensure that the services would be accessible to everyone. 

Mr Dimba stated that so far all the Regulator’s public awareness campaigns… [Unclear Audio 1:24:41]

The Chairperson requested that another member of the Regulator respond on his behalf.

Ms Nomzamo Zondi, Senior Manager: Communication, Information Regulator, noted the suggestion about amplifying awareness to the community in order for them to understand the Act. This was reflected in the mid-year performance report. The education and communication division had done a lot of work around public awareness. All official languages were used, including braille. Amplification of awareness had taken place on community radio stations, where advertisements were run simplifying the two pieces of legislation and what the Information Regulator was mandated to do. This had been done in all 11 official languages and over 80 radio stations in the country. The Regulator had been involved in conversations with organisations that were involved in a lot of civil work and advocacy, including Black Sash, to increase public awareness. There were robust plans in place to amplify public awareness further.

Ms Sewlal responded to the question about the research plan and strategy which was still outstanding. The statutory plan and the framework to guide research had been developed. The Regulator wanted to refine the strategy and consult with external experts. This had been done in this financial year, and included the Human Sciences Research Council (HSRC) and the University of Pretoria. The research study could not be conducted in the previous financial year as the research strategy informed the research study that the Regulator would undertake. In the current financial year, even though the research strategy was still awaiting final approval, which was imminent, the Regulator had started work on the research studies.

The Department of Justice had not provided a conclusive report on the nature of the breach nor the extent of the breach, which was what precipitated the Regulator to appoint an independent digital forensic analyst. The letter of appointment would go out in the next couple of days. Some delays were experienced in the procurement process, that was underway. The Regulator needed to ascertain independently the extent of the harm and how many records were compromised.

Constant communication had taken place with WhatsApp over the past few months. A final assessment was conducted on their policy. The Regulator wrote to them on 1 November 2021 and WhatsApp were given 30 days in which to revise their policy to be aligned with the provisions of POPIA. Should WhatsApp not do that the Regulator would proceed with the mechanisms at their disposal in terms of the Act. The breach had impacted the Regulator’s access to emails, which had created some challenges for them but that was being navigated.

Ms Vuyiswa Ramosangoana, Chief Information Officer, Information Regulator, responded to the question about the regulation portal. A service provider had been appointed, who was busy developing the registration portal. A lot of work had been done on that. User acceptance testing was currently underway i.e. testing the system to ensure that it did what it was supposed to do. After that, it would be decided when the portal would go live. The Regulator was still under the Department of Justice’s network infrastructure, policies and controls. The Regulator was working towards establishing its own infrastructure, where security controls would be put in place.

Adv Mohale responded to the question about slide 44, which spoke about organisational performance. There were seven outputs of which three were achieved. The major issue for non-performance was that the Regulator did not have capacity. Since then, the Regulator had hired quite a few people and applications were being processed. The cause of the non-performance was due to the processing of applications – quite a difference had been made since then. The target was exceeded with the complaints system, eleven applications were finalised since the beginning of October 2021 and one was withdrawn. Six applications were received for the finalisation of information, one application had been finalised. For the processing of personal information of children, one out of the 19 applications received had been finalised. All the applications with the Regulator were in the advanced stages of processing. The next time the Regulator was before the Committee there would be improved feedback to give.

Adv Tlakula stated that the Regulator had found that there was a lack of understanding and apprehension among responsible parties, as seen in the applications for prioritizations and exemptions. The Regulator was being flooded with applications – even those that did not require applications, as companies did not want to be on the wrong side of the law. Most of those applications would likely be rejected. 

Ms Sewlal stated that the compliance framework had been drafted and circulated for comment. Personal information impact assessments were being conducted with every division within the Regulator, the outcome of that would inform their final compliance framework because that was intended to identify all processing gaps in personal information and enable the Regulator to mitigate any risk that arose from the processing of personal information. The research strategy had been achieved and had been consulted on. The POPIA impact assessment had been approved for the Regulator. It was determined that the Regulator would conduct divisional meetings. Four meetings had already been conducted. The outcome of that would be that the personal information assessment report would be finalised by the end of the financial year. That formed a component of the compliance framework. The approved rules of procedure for the Enforcement Committee had been drafted and presented to the Exco and needed to be dealt with in a working Committee, which was to shortly be convened. One of the studies that had been commenced was around the prevalence of CCTVs and monitoring issues. The last indicator dealt with the prioritised actions and readiness plan that needed to be implemented. The Regulator had drafted 11 of the 22 required – some of these had been presented to Manco and Exco, others were waiting to be presented. From there it went to a working committee and would be implemented.

Adv Lebogang Stroom, Full-time Member, Information Regulator, stated that with COVID-19, the Regulator issued a guidance note about curbing the spread of COVID-19. The challenge was that the Regulator was roped in late on the discussions. The guidance note had assisted. Proactive accurate messaging at the beginning would have helped to curb fake news.

The Chairperson thanked the Regulator and the work it had done.

Adv Tlakula thanked the Members of the Committee, particularly as this would be her, and a number of other members, last meeting before the Committee, being outgoing members of the Information Regulator. She thanked the Committee for its support. Establishing the first Information Regulator in the country had been very difficult but the support from the Committee and Department was appreciated.

Mr Horn agreed with Adv Tlakula that it had not been easy. The Committee had at times felt very frustrated at the slow pace at which things moved forward. It would be unfair to ascribe that solely to Adv Tlakula and her colleagues who served in their capacity at the Regulator. He wished them all well.

Dr Newhoudt-Druchen thanked the outgoing members of the Regulator, for their hard work in founding and setting up the organization. There were always teething problems. There were many lessons learnt that could be carried forward by the Regulator

Adv S Swart (ACDP) thanked Adv Tlakula and all the members of the Regulator for the incredible work they had done in establishing the Regulator under difficult circumstances. He trusted that the outstanding issues would be speedily dealt with. He wished the very best to any members who were not returning.

Adv Breytenbach wished the members of the Regulator who were not returning the best in their future careers. It had been difficult, not everything had worked out as envisaged but there had been progress. To those who may be returning, she looked forward to working with them again. She suggested trying to do in the next five years, all the things not done in the past five years.

The Chairperson congratulated the members of the Regulator for their hard work. Their names would remain in history as establishing one of the most important institutions and enforcing an important right in the country. He hoped that they continued to work in the service of the country. The members of the Regulator had a rare opportunity of starting something fresh. The issues of gender parity, transformation and persons with disabilities needed to be addressed. The Committee would want to see that in the way the Regulator recruited.

The members of the information Regulator were excused from the meeting

Discussion about the lack of Formal Employment Benefits at the Information Regulator
The Chairperson stated that this was not good news –‘ it was not on.’ There were institutions that directly reported to the Committee that needed the Committee’s protection. The issue of having an institution, such as this, being treated the way it was, was not on. He requested Members comments on this.

Mr Horn agreed with the Chairperson. It was not good to hear new issues at this meeting. This Committee should strongly consider making use of its powers to get all involved before the Committee. He suggested that an in-person meeting might be most appropriate.

The Chairperson stated that the Minister of Finance and Justice would be invited. The only challenge was that the Committee had already approved the Report – this issue was very important and should have been included in the Report.

Dr Newhoudt-Druchen stated that it was a great pity that this happened during the five years and the Committee was only being made aware of the situation now, as members were exiting. The two Ministers needed to be called for a meeting with the Committee. It was not nice for highly professional people, of their calibre to be treated in such a manner.

Adv Breytenbach agreed with the comments made. An in-person meeting would be most appropriate in these circumstances – so that the Ministers could be ‘looked in the eye,’ so to speak. Going forward, when the Regulator was reconstituted, the Committee should build in a mechanism that traversed these issues so that this kind of information would come to light earlier and the Committee could do something about it. It was a great pity that this information was not made available earlier.

Ms Maseko-Jele agreed with the other Members. There were no reasons for ill-treating people in that way. She asked if there was anything that had to do with procedures in the Act that needed to be considered before that meeting with the Ministers. The issue of independence had been coming since the beginning. That issue needed to be sped up and sorted out. Perhaps members of the Regulator kept quiet in light of the high unemployment rate in the country. She suggested pushing the issue of independence in the meeting with the Ministers.

The Chairperson stated that when the Committee dealt with the devolution of the Scorpions and the Hawks, after that there was a judgment that dealt with the issue of independence. He did not think in reading that judgement, and the treatment of this institution, any legal muster could be passed. The issue would come back to Parliament – ‘what had Parliament done to protect the independence of the Institution.’ Parliament could not keep quiet. There could not be institutions that were created by an Act of Parliament being ill-treated by officials, where members of the Executive kept quiet – it could not keep quiet. The letter needed to be written urgently. It would need to be seen if a meeting could still be arranged in this year or early the following year. It had to be addressed urgently. Who worked without clearly defined benefits? Those benefits could not be ‘assumed’

Adv Breytenbach suggested that it be done this year, it was serious enough to do before the end of the year.

The Chairperson stated that the meeting would be physical. He suggested that because many Members were in Gauteng, the meeting should take place in Pretoria.

Adv Swart agreed. He stated that the Committee needed to keep in mind that there was a new Minister of Finance, and the Committee would need to express itself strongly in the Budgetary Review and Recommendations Report (BRRR) on this issue. He agreed on the principle applying, as was applied relating to the Hawks and Scorpions. Hopefully by the time the BRRR report was accepted, the meeting would have taken place.

Dr Newhoudt-Druchen asked if the Judicial Inspectorate for Correctional Services (JICS) had a similar concern about separation. Should this be brought up at the meeting?

The Chairperson thought there were serious differences of opinion between JICS and Treasury, while the Minister of Justice was on the same page. Treasury believed JICS should be part of the Human Rights Commission. Would it be appropriate to cover these issues in the same meeting?

Mr Horn stated that he did not have an in-principal objection to dealing with it together. The Committee needed to be mindful that the difference was that JICS’s independence/establishment would require a legislative amendment. That was not the case with the Information Regulator.

Adv Breytenbach had no objection to dealing with both of the issues; however she thought if the Committee dealt with the issues together it would delay dealing with the Regulator’s issues to such an extent that it would be detrimental. She suggested dealing with them separately.

The Chairperson stated that the JICS matter was purely legislative and would still come to the Committee. In the case of the Regulator, the legislation was done and dusted and there was disregard of an Act of Parliament. He suggested dealing with one issue at a time.

Ms Maseko-Jele suggested mentioning the other issue in passing at the meeting with the Ministers, but not focusing on it.

Dr Newhoudt-Druchen accepted the proposal.

The meeting was adjourned.