The ISS recognises the tremendous difficulties and challenges faced by the Honourable Minister of Finance in making the budget balance and allocating resources to and between the many demanding priorities for the betterment of the lives of all in South Africa and our region and congratulates the Minister and his Department for their successful management of the budget over the last 10 years.

The ISS appreciates the prominence given by the Minister to the normalisation of the situation in certain Southern African countries and to the fact that peace-missions will remain an important responsibility for South Africa. The acknowledgement of the fact that South Africa also has an important role in strengthening the institutions of the Africa Union (AU) and SADC as a matter of priority is also seen as a positive national commitment to peace and security in Africa as a prerequisite for human security and growth and development.

The SANDF has become an increasingly important instrument of foreign policy in recent years and has become involved in peace missions in Africa far beyond original expectations. The developing African collective security architecture such as the AU Peace and Security Council, the Common African Defence and Security Policy and the African Standby Force as well as SADC regional developments such as the Mutual Defence Pact and the SADC Regional Brigade all place great demands on the SANDF to participate and contribute. At the same time the internal involvement of the SANDF in support of the SAPS in the fight against crime has continued at about the same level as before 1994. These activities, together with the demands placed on the SANDF for integration, transformation and development of core conventional capabilities have placed great pressure on the SANDF budget and management to balance priorities and maintain its determined capabilities.

The above factors have led to a reduction in the operating budget (goods and services) of the SANDF to 21% of the budget (up to the 2003/04 cycle of the MTEF this was below 20%). Operating expenditure represents the portion of the DOD budget spent on day-to-day running of the defence force, maintaining equipment and infrastructure, developing and preparing personnel, and administering the force. This includes spares and tools, fuel and lubricants, training munitions, uniforms, rations, communications, IT, and stationary amongst others. This figure should not include the cost of actual operations, as this should be covered from national (treasury) contingent funds. Unfortunately a significant proportion of SANDF operations are also funded from this part of the budget. The benchmark figure for operating expenditure (excluding actual operational deployments) is 30%, well above the current DOD level. This has led to restrictions in the maintenance of infrastructure and equipment, training and force preparation and general support to the force.

In the light of this the ISS welcomes the announcement in Chapter 5 of the MTBPS for:

• Continued support for the African agenda;
• Regional peacekeeping, particularly in Burundi and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The MTBPS states that this "remains a priority for the Department of Defence. Current deployment levels will be sustained and funding in respect of peace support operations remains a significant spending pressure over the MTEF period"; and
• Additional funding for enhanced infrastructure maintenance and integration of newly acquired strategic defence equipment.

The ISS however expresses its concerns regarding:

• The lack of evidence in the MTBPS for addressing the pressing shortfall in the DOD budget for operating expenses; and
• The fazing out of the SANDF territorial reserves (the so-called Commandos) as this will seriously hamper the capability of the SANDF to be able to support the SAPS in the event of the need for the restoration of law and order and in fighting organised crime of a violent and military nature such as cash-in-transit heists, trans-border crimes and terrorism. The ISS has made a submission to the Portfolio Committee on Defence (on 26 October 2004) to initiate a re-consideration of the fazing out of the territorial reserves (commandos) of the SANDF.

In the Adjusted Estimates of National Expenditure the ISS welcomes the virements for the:

• Establishment of the Warrant Officer’s Academy;
• The move of the Foreign Relations Function to the Administration programme;
• The placement of the study for the Future African Battle Space Concept with the Joint Operations Division. The ISS however recommends that this study be renamed to the Future African Operational Environment Study.
• The saving of R 878 million on the strategic defence package due to the improved exchange rate.

The ISS takes note of the Minister’s statement that the Government’s responsibilities for promoting an efficient and effective justice system enjoy particular priority.

In the light of this the ISS welcomes the announcement in Chapter 5 of the MTBPS for:

• Improving the efficiency of the courts through a dedicated court management system;
• The provision of additional personnel;
• Enhancing public awareness and rural outreach in respect of citizens’ rights; and
• Additional resources to increase the capacity of the Independent Complaints Directorate to investigate complaints by citizens against police personnel.

The picture painted by this vote aligns with the main activities that the department seeks to perform in further enhancing its capacity. Little worrying is the amount of money that was over-budgeted (R77.07 million) and therefore has to be adjusted for other activities within the department. While the budget breakdown is understandable as a yardstick used by the department in allocating funds, the problem seems to lie with prioritisation.

The core problem that faces the department seems to be in court buildings and staffing. There are simply not enough judicial officers, prosecutors and other court personnel to match the demand; hence the backlog of cases estimated at 170 000. Being the core of the justice system, whatever staff shortage is experienced by the court is bound to affect the whole criminal justice system. For instance, case backlog is bound to impact on the prison population if people have to spend a lot of time awaiting trial. It is submitted that resources should be more concentrated on lessening the backlog than on administration and auxiliary and associated services.

Perhaps the department should take a strategic decision to streamline as a way of dealing with the bottlenecks and delaying of cases, especially where accused persons are in incarceration. Although the integrated justice system and the criminal justice strengthening programme do not appear on the budget as specific projects, there must be a link between these two important initiatives and the budget. Both programmes are aimed at improving the effectiveness of the system, in particular to speed up the process from the case’s entry into the system to its finalisation. These are programmes that, rightly, consume significant amounts of resources at the beginning stages. Properly implemented, however, they stand to benefit the department in the long run. Having made these introductory remarks, it is fitting to deal with each of the items individually:

This takes 11% of the total amount. Perhaps budgetary priority here should be on ‘re-engineering of the judicial system’ at the expense of administration to the extent that such administration relates to the end product of the re-engineering process.

Court services account for 47%. While this is the highest expenditure, there seems to be a need to further inject money into it because this is the core of the whole justice system. The rest, save for NPA, are support services to ‘court services’.

While state legal services account for the smallest percentage (4%), it is one of those unpredictable items in terms of budgeting given that one is ordinarily not able to tell what this section would be called upon to deliver. It comes as no surprise that the available of R4.433 million does not come with an explanation. Arguably, over-budgeting here is acceptable, as would under-budgeting have been.

Understandably this section, accounting for 23%, is second only to court services. NPA includes National Prosecuting Services (NPS), the Witness Protection Programme, the AFU, Sexual Offences and Community Affairs Unit, the Commercial Crime Unit and the Directorate: Special Operations. Mainly, these are all initiatives that came with the re-engineering of the criminal justice system and, owing to the specialisation of the majority of them, dig deep into the budget of the department. Being the main link between SAPS and the courts, this is a part well deserving of spending money on. It is commendable that no over- or under-budgeting has been recorded under this section.

This is one unpredictable item. It accounts for 15%. The point to be made here could be that this section should get a smaller slice given that is ordinarily less urgent relative to the other functions.

While over-budgeting is understandable within a department subjected to substantial re-engineering, it remains worrying and raises questions of prioritisation. As the core function of the department is to make sure that justice is delivered (viz. speedy trials are ensured by competent personnel), it would be appropriate to inject even more funds into that aspect of the justice system.

Looking at the budget of the department here, one does not see evidence of provision for monitoring and evaluation. This is a core function that would enable the department to take stock of its available products on an ongoing basis to make sure that problems are identified and dealt with timeously. For instance, the mainstay project of the department, Re: Aga Boswa, needs to be kept under constant monitoring to ascertain that it, indeed, effects the re-engineering.

The department has been innovative in dealing with some of its main challenges such as the case backlog. A shining example presents itself in the weekend courts. Perhaps the challenge is to assess the sustainability of such initiatives and their capacity to deliver on the intended outcomes. If weekend courts entail more expenditure in respect of things such as ‘over-time pay’ for personnel, the key question becomes: in the long run does this initiative solve the problem? If not, would it be better to use such resources for long-term objectives? This presents a prioritisation question to the department.

The Department of Correctional Service is facing a mammoth task. The Department’s main aims are to hold prisoners in safe and secure conditions, while at the same time contribute to the development of those under its care, with the aim of promoting responsible citizenship and respect for the law after people have gone through its system.

The ultimate aim is to enable former prisoners to reintegrate back into communities, thus reducing the likelihood of repeat offending and in turn contribute to crime prevention in communities. These aims are contained and explained in the White Paper on Corrections, which must still be costed.

Adjusted estimates in percentages –2004

The above table provides, in percentages where money is to be spent with regard to programmes. What is clear is that a large percentage of the budget goes into personnel administration, incarceration and facilities management. It would seem though that the budget does not necessarily match departmental core objectives, i.e. rehabilitation and reintegration of offenders. It is however, understandable why this is the case. The Department is faced with a serious problem of overcrowding. The problem does not lie only within the department, but in the discord that exists between the work that police and courts perform. As more cases are being reported to the police and ultimately processed by the courts, the overcrowding situation within DCS gets worse.

In order for the Department to be able to execute its mandate, the first thing that needs to happen is that the budget must match the objectives. Secondly, building of extra prisons must be matched with alternatives to imprisonment and principles of restorative justice. This will require extra efforts from other departments other than corrections. In addition, for DCS to cut further costs, the location of awaiting trial detainees needs to be examined. If they still remain under DCS, the costs should be shared between the key departments within the Criminal Justice System.

An interesting development in this budget is noted in the area of facilities. The department has had a number of mishaps with regard to building prisons. The PPP prisons and the Kokstad prison are good examples of this. The feasibility study is indeed a good move and the allocation of the roll over money is a good investment.

The other good news is the lower inflation rate that brought saving from the PPP prisons. The inflation rate has been one of the issues around the costs of prisons and hopefully if it remains low, DCS will save more money and the debate around the costs of PPP’s will subside.

Despite the low budgeting for development, the expansion of rehabilitation programmes is good news. However, as with building more prisons, careful studies need to be undertaken to determine which programmes are relevant, which ones work, and whether they are sustainable. Without further research, a situation might be created where programmes exist but are effectively useless. Prisoners might only attend to gain good points for participation but not gain from the programme.

The increase in transport and telephone costs for probationers and parolees is also welcome. With the new parole policy coming, it might be an important move to monitor if the trend continues at the same rate. If it does, then necessary adjustments will have to be made. But again, the concern is that not enough money is allocated for after care.

However, it should also be borne in mind that this should not be the sole responsibility of the DCS. Other departments should share these costs as well, including Social Development. This is an area where NGOs can also play a vital role. Therefore, collaborative partnerships (similar to those that already exist with DCS) need to be strengthened.

As mentioned earlier, DCS deals with the difficult section of the criminal justice system. They are constantly criticised for escapes, repeat offending, and sometimes for being lenient on criminals. None of these necessarily fall completely under their jurisdiction. It is imperative that consideration should be given to the impact on DCS when people are arrested, refused bail and sentenced.

Certain laws also need to be revisited, as they are a constant threat to DCS’s attempts to reduce overcrowding. The minimum sentencing legislation in particular needs reviewing. Finally, the budget must match the objectives as laid out in Correctional Service Act 111 and the White Paper.

The ISS takes note of the Minister’s statement that the Government’s responsibilities for combating crime and violence enjoy particular priority.

In the light of this the ISS welcomes the announcement in Chapter 5 of the MTBPS for:

• Improved salaries for the police;
• Improving the State’s capacity for fighting crime;
• The provision of 8 000 additional personnel;

As in the case of the comments on Defence above, the ISS expresses its concerns regarding the fazing out of the SANDF territorial reserves (the so-called Commandos) as this will seriously hamper the capability of the SANDF to be able to support the SAPS in the event of the need for the restoration of law and order and in fighting organised crime of a violent and military nature such as cash-in-transit heists, trans-border crimes and terrorism. The ISS has made a submission to the Portfolio Committee on Defence (on 26 October 2004) to initiate a re-consideration of the fazing out of the territorial reserves (commandos) of the SANDF.

This submission was drawn up by:

Anton Du Plessis: Head of the Crime and Justice Programme

Len Le Roux: Head of the Defence Sector Programme

Makubetse Sekhonyane: Senior Researcher at the Crime and Justice Programme