1. It is noted with appreciation that some of my previously raised concerns were addressed. It is however regretted that the prosecuting authority is not yet exempted from the Bill in the light of the disclosure provisions laid down by the Constitutional Court in the Shabalala-judgment.
2. I still maintain that access to investigative and prosecutorial material must specifically be regulated but not by the above Bill. I suggest that recent developments like the appointment of a National Director of Prosecutions (who will inter alia develop a prosecuting policy and who can be instrumental in shaping regulations in terms of the Criminal Procedure Act regards disclosure) should be taken into consideration. It is again suggested that the Open Democracy Bill should simply state that access to professional material in the hands of the prosecuting authority must be governed by regulations in terms of the Criminal Procedure Act.
3. My concerns regards additional workloads created by the Bill for already over-burdened prosecutors (who due to their sui generis functions to some extent will each have to function as an information officer) are more pressing than ever. This can definitely not be in the interests of justice.
4. The concerns raised regards the fact that certain confidential information provided to the prosecution is not protected from publicity are reiterated (section 32(2) previously 33(2) as well as paragraph 6.2 of my previous comments refer). Confidential information supplied by parties often gives rise to the solving of crimes or the furthering of the investigating process. Should this not be protected it will be detrimental to the process of justice and the investigation of crimes.
5. In general, the proposed Bill is highly complicated - perhaps more so than our civil law of procedure - and will require information officers to be legal fundi.
J A van S d’Oliveira S C
ATTORNEY-GENERAL:
TRANSVAAL