1. INTRODUCTION

Honourable Chairperson, members of the Portfolio Committee, ladies and gentlemen, it is indeed a great pleasure and privilege as chairperson of the SA Board for Sheriffs to present not only the achievements of our interventions over the past few years, but also to illustrate and address the challenges that we face towards regulating and transforming the sheriffs’ profession.

The sheriffs’ profession is the face of the civil justice system in our country and is often the only link between civil court proceedings, processes and the public. The public often experiences the enforcement of civil law through the sheriff, when court orders are executed. In this sense, the sheriffs’ profession constitutes a vital cog in the machinery of civil justice.

As you are aware, the South African Board for Sheriffs (SABFS) is a statutory body that derives its existence from section 7 of the Sheriffs’ Act, 1986 [Act 90 of 1986, as amended] and has as its objects the maintenance of the esteem of, the enhancement of the status of, and the improvement of the standard of training of and functions performed by sheriffs.

2. VISION, MISSION AND CORE BUSINESS OF THE SA BOARD FOR SHERIFFS

To inform the execution of their statutory mandate as alluded to above, the Board developed strategic guidelines as outlined in the vision, mission and the core business.

However, we would like to stress that these guiding principles, articulated by the new Board, deviate from the objects of the Board, as stipulated in the Sheriffs’ Act. The developed vision, mission and core business strive to supplement the deficiencies of the Act that stifle the transformation process with regard to:

• Representivity of the sheriffs profession
• Accessibility to the profession
• Conduct of sheriffs
• Financial viability of the Board
• Public accountability

A transformed, professional, publicly accountable and credible sheriffs’ institution which reflects the human rights culture of the Constitution.

The mission of the Board is to:

The core business of the Board is:

The advent of the new constitutional order heralded a new public service founded on the principles of openness, responsiveness and accountability, a public service epitomised by Batho Pele (People First) principles. Although not public servants, sheriffs are nevertheless appointed by the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development in terms of the Sheriffs Act. In line with the new order and dispensation, the sheriffs’ profession had to transform both in terms of service delivery as well as its composition.

In line with the initial audit of the profession and the consequent articulation of key result areas, the Board is in a position to unveil the following strategic successes with confidence.

A transformed South African Board for Sheriffs is in place to manage the transformation process in an effective and efficient fashion. The Board has articulated strategic plans for the organization for the next three years, which in turn will deepen and advance the transformation process of the profession. [Strategic plans are annexed].

Based on a systematic and thorough reflection on the internal and external contexts, a number of strategic thrusts were identified, of which the following are salient points.

• To ensure that that the sheriffs’ profession is transformed in totality
• To maximize the income of the Board to ensure that the Board is financially sustainable
• To ensure that the Board’s budget accords to its strategic objectives and is in line with the PMFA requirements
• To advise the Ministry on amendments to be effected to the legislative framework of the profession
• To accredit training programmes in line with specified requirements of the South African Qualifications Authority (SAQA)
• To accredit the Board as a training provider
• To assist the Ministry in the appointment of sheriffs in line with the Constitutional Imperatives
• To streamline disciplinary procedures
• To advance the communication campaign of the Board through a range of media instruments

2. AN EXECUTIVE OFFICE

The office of the Board operates as a business unit, headed by a CEO. The management style is empowering in nature and reflects the values of a learning organisation. Operational workplans with key deliverables are articulated in a logical framework format. The state-of-the-art IT system orchestrates the operations of the sheriffs, and in essence regulates the re-enforcement of civil law in a coherent fashion at a national level. Suffice to say that the office of the Board has changed radically in respect of operational and value systems in comparison to same three years ago. The Board is proud to have achieved these successes in a short time with limited financial and human resources.

3. SHERIFFS ARE TRAINED

Prior to the transformation process, the training of sheriffs was characterised by archaic educational methodologies and not accredited by the relevant education authorities. In line with the vision of this Board, a culture of learning has been inculcated in the profession. The rolled out training programmes have led to:

• The facilitation of a career path for individuals in the profession.
• The formation of a Standards Generating Body [SGB] in line with the requirements specified by the South African Qualifications Authority.
• The development of a body of learning material that meets the requirements of outcomes based education.

The formation of the SGB is a significant victory in accrediting and empowering previously disadvantaged individuals, and the deliverance of excellent services. As a result of this process, the appointment of sheriffs will eventually be subjected to benchmarks of prescribed standards and qualifications.

Despite the capacitation of more than eight hundred learners in the past two years, the Board is inundated with training requests, which, we are unable to honour due to limited financial resources.

The Board’s training strategy and its formal networks with SAQA and the POSLEC SETA illustrate the commitment it has to skills development of the civil justice sector.

2. A NEW IMAGE OF THE SHERIFF

With a view to inform the public and all stakeholders of the profession about the transformation process, an aggressive communication campaign was launched.

It is estimated that approximately 10 million people have been given insight to the sheriffs’ profession through a range of media instruments such as:

• National Television Broadcasting
• CEO Monthly Newsletter
• Siyanazisa Quarterly Newsletter
• National Radio Advertising
• Community Radio Advertising
• Comuta FM Advertising
• Numerous Radio Interviews (community and national stations)
• Numerous Newspaper Interviews (community and national papers)
• Interviews in Popular Magazines and Periodicals
• Advertising in Magazines and Periodicals
• Advertising in Buses and Trains (national)
• National Gazebo Promotions
• Distribution of 1.5 million Information Leaflets and Brochures
• Corporate Identity Materials
• Regional Imbizos
• Website

This campaign has ensured that the public at large has a greater understanding of their rights and responsibilities as well as the role and functions of the sheriffs, in the execution of civil law. Through this intervention, a positive new image of the sheriffs’ profession has been promoted.

2. DEEPENING THE TRANSFORMATION PROCESS

The above-mentioned interventions are strategic building blocks in promoting transformation of the profession, however, it is recognised that such interventions are not robust enough to sustain this process.

The transformation process over the past three years has uncovered new layers of intervention that are needed to advance this project.

The intervention by the Board has deepened its understanding of this process – throwing up new opportunities and challenges. It is for this very reason that the Board developed a new strategic plan for the next three years.

The Board realises that the transformation process will only be at a matured phase over the next three to five years. Cognisance needs to be taken that the transformation of the profession is part and parcel of the national democratic agenda of South Africa. The national democratic agenda in respect of the transformation process, with all its challenges, has been in operation for the past ten years, whilst the democratisation of the sheriffs’ profession is only celebrating its third year of implementation.

The Board’s role in transforming the profession through appointments is severely restrained by our limited involvement in the process as stipulated in regulation 9 of the Regulations under the Sheriffs Act (Act No. 90 of 1986), which provides that we should ‘…submit the names of the applicants to whom [the Board] would be prepared to grant fidelity fund certificates in order of preference to the Director-General of Justice for submission to the Minister’.

At the beginning of our term of office in 2002, the composition of the sheriffs was as follows:

• White 84%
• Black 16%
• Female 9.6%

Despite the restraining legislative conditions, this Board has been able to influence the change in the racial composition of sheriffs as follows:

• White 73%
• Black 27%
• Female 13%

The dominant culture of inequality still prevails in the profession. Affirmative action appointments can only be implemented effectively once a core group of previously disadvantaged prospective sheriffs are trained and a conducive legislative environment is in place. Current legislation restricts the momentum of transformation in that sheriffs who were appointed before 1990, will only retire at the age of 70. Another factor retarding the appointment of PDI’s is the Department’s principle decision to combine High and Lower court sheriffs’ offices into a single appointment.

Between 19 May 2003 and 02 May 2004, the Board had the opportunity to indicate to the Minister candidates to whom Fidelity Fund Certificates would be issued were they to be appointed in the permanent and acting sheriffs’ positions. Being cognisant of the complex nature of transforming the profession, the following recommendations were made:

The White males have been recommended for appointment in the acting positions until a previously disadvantaged successor could be appointed. Occupying the acting positions therefore are mainly sheriffs who have reached the retirement age and have been requested to continue rendering their services until a successor has been appointed. This is mainly aimed at avoiding a situation where legitimate expectation is created were a person to be appointed to act in these positions.

The statistical information in respect of appointment of sheriffs should not be interpreted in isolation, but rather the gross income of individual sheriff’s offices should also be taken into account. The Board’s recommendations in respect of the above appointments is informed by this principle.

An area that the Board has identified as still a challenge with regard to the appointment of sheriffs is to ensure that the respective interview panels buy-in on the transformation agenda. The Advisory Committees that conduct the interviews often do not take account of the constitutional imperatives to transform the sheriffs’ profession in terms of race and gender.

Too much emphasis is placed upon factors such as:

• Knowledge of the Sheriffs Act
• Relevant legislations such as the Magistrates Court Act and the Supreme Court Act
• The candidate’s financial resources to start a sheriff’s office.

Consequently, the Board has engaged the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development with the view to have the relevant legislation amended to enable the Board to participate in the interview process for sheriffs’ appointments. We understand from the DOJCD that the legislative amendments will be brought to your committee, and we appeal for your support of this process.

1. ADVANCING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF SECTION 3(2)(b)

Section 3(2)(b) of the Sheriffs’ Act provides that: ‘The Minister may, after consultation with the Board, appoint more than one sheriff for a particular area to perform the duties and functions assigned to a sheriff’.

The implementation of Section 3(2)(b) is viewed by the Board as a potential vehicle to make the sheriffs’ profession more representative of the race and gender composition of the country.

The implementation of Section 3(2)(b) provides the opportunity for competition between two or more sheriffs in the same area. The Board argues that we should guard against repetition whereby the more lucrative offices remain in the hands of white sheriffs and black sheriffs occupy the uneconomical offices. Therefore, the implementation of Section 3(2)(b) should also not lead to the creation of smaller and less economical offices, occupied by blacks.

A systematic approach in the form of a pilot project was launched by the Ministry of Justice and Constitutional Development [DOJCD] and the Board to implement Section 3(2)(b) in lucrative vacant offices. After completing a viability study of such offices, it was recommended that Section 3(2)(b) should be implemented in the following areas:

It was envisaged that at least twelve Previously Disadvantaged Individuals [PDI’s] will discharge responsibilities of these lucrative sheriffs’ offices by September 2003. The Board has ensured that a training programme is in place for successful applicants to deliver service of excellence in these areas. Advertisements for these positions were placed in national newspapers as early as March 2003. The Board has thus far been requested to indicate candidates to be issued with fidelity fund certificates for only two of these six areas.

To date, no appointments have been effected by the DOJCD, partly because the Rules Board has not finalised the amendment of rules pertaining to the implementation of Section 3(2)(b).

In collaboration with the DOJCD, a desktop study to identify other offices where Section 3(2)(b) could be implemented, has been intitiated.

In the light of the evident delay in the implementation of section 3(2)(b), it is argued that a successful roll-out of this section of the Sheriffs’ Act can be realised if:

• Terms of Reference guide such task- team
• The Rules in respect of section 3(2)(b) is promulgated as a matter of urgency

• The task-team act on behalf of the Minister and account accordingly

1. RESPONDING DECISIVELY TO DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURES AND COMPLAINTS

One of the key objectives of SABFS is to execute disciplinary procedures against erring sheriffs, as provided in terms of Chapter IV of the Sheriffs Act (Act 90 of 1988 as amended), particularly Section 18(1)(c). Chapter IV of the Act provides an exhaustive list that incorporates aspects such as the manner in which complaints should be lodged with the Board as well as the procedure which is to be followed as sanctioned for improper conduct. This step could be regarded as an initial departure point in commencing disciplinary action against the incumbent that may lead to a disciplinary enquiry.

Although the Board is charged with the responsibility to discipline sheriffs, in order for the Board to effectively dispose of this mandate, it needs to complete the chain of process which would involve powers to deal with these factors without any impediment.

The aspect that impedes the powers of the Board in carrying out its mandate to discipline sheriffs is the limiting legislation with regard to actions to be taken against a sheriff who is found guilty of improper conduct. In term of sections 49 and 50 of the Sheriffs Act, the power to suspend or remove a sheriff from office rests with the Minister.

The challenge posed to the Board by this state of affairs is the perception of ineffectiveness of the Board in its regulatory function among the profession’s stakeholders including the sheriffs themselves. This unhealthy situation has a compromising effect to the image of the Board.

In an endeavour to address this matter and streamline disciplinary procedures, the Board proposes amendment of certain provisions of the Sheriffs Act. These include the following:

• Section 49: Action against sheriff found guilty of improper conduct.
• Section 50: Suspension of sheriff.
• Section 51: Certain sheriffs deemed to be removed from their office by reason of improper conduct.
• Section 52: Powers of minister relating to improper conduct

It is acknowledged that the South African Board for Sheriffs, together with a range of institutions, such as the Legal Aid Board, the Magistrates Commission and the Rules Board of Court of Law, have been established to take care of certain areas within the framework of the environment covered by the Ministry for Justice and Constitutional Development. However, despite the operational service delivery by the Board in favour of civil justice, the state does not make any financial contributions to fulfil such functions, especially if it is compared to similar auxiliary institutions. Consequently, in discharging functions on behalf of the DOJCD in the form of auxiliary and transformative services, tremendous pressure has been put on the financial resources of the SABFS.

To execute its mandate, the Board’s financial resource base relies solely on the collection of levies from sheriffs. However, we need to be cognisant of the diminishing income of the sheriffs over the past few years. The Board is engaged in a process to maximise the income generated from sheriffs within the present legislative framework.

With the assistance of the Ministry and the DOJCD, the SABFS has been fortunate to raise donor funds from Swiss Development Cooperation (SDC) for the past three financial years, to transform the sheriff’s profession. There is absolutely no guarantee that the same kind of funding will be accessed in the next financial year, despite the respect and accolades shown by the donor regarding the successful roll-out of project by the Board. However, it needs to be noted that the policy of the DOJCD in respect of donor funds, is that such funds are normally utilized for once-off projects and for projects that will eventually be funded through the vote account. The intention of the Department is to ensure that projects be sustainable even after funding is withdrawn or has come to an end.

As a statutory body, the Board finds itself in an unenviable position to engage donors, as it is cognisant of bilateral agreements between foreign governments and South Africa. Noting the symbiotic relationship between the Board and DOJCD, it is preferred that the latter assist the Board in accessing donor funding within the bilateral agreement context.

6. CONCLUSION

Given the merits of the transformed roles and functions of the SABFS, the Board would appreciate the support of the Portfolio Committee in its endeavours to fast-track the proposed legislative changes and to access funding from the Ministry and the DOJCD

The Board expresses its appreciation for the opportunity afforded it to share with the Portfolio Committee the milestones covered since last year and we’re looking forward to a continued working relationship towards the achievement of our common vision.

Mrs Zodwa N Nduna Chairperson

Mr Anthony Makwetu Deputy Chairperson

Mr Johan Fourie

Mr Prince Maluleke

Mr Aubrey Mali

Mrs Chantel Fortuin

Mr Chris De Wet

Mr Nithiananda Govender

Mrs Christiane Duval

Mr Phillip Phiri

Mrs Veliswa Baduza Chief Executive Officer