DRAFT REPORT OF THE PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE AND CONSTITUTIONAL
DEVELOPMENT & SELECT COMMITTEE ON SECURITY AND CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS 08
JUNE 2006
HEARINGS ON THE IMPLICATIONS AND APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED NEW SALARY SCALES FOR
THE MAGISTRACY, IN PARTICULAR THE INTRODUCTION OF A NEW MOTOR VEHICLE ALLOWANCE
FOR MAGISTRATES AND SENIOR MAGISTRATES, AS RECOMMENDED BY THE INDEPENDENT
COMMISSION FOR THE REMUNERATION OF PUBLIC OFFICE BEARERS.
The Portfolio Committee on Justice and Constitutional Development (portfolio
Committee) and the Select Committee on Security and Constitutional Affairs
(Select Committee) having jointly held hearings to consider the implications of
the proposed new salary scales for the magistracy, in particular the
introduction of a new motor vehicle allowance for magistrates and senior
magistrates, as recommended in Notice 46 of 2005 in the Government Gazette of
24 August 2005, and tabled in the House on 7 September 2005, report as follows:
A. INTRODUCTION
1. On 18 October 2005, the Portfolio Committee together with the Select
Committee convened hearings with representatives from the Department of Justice
and Constitutional Development (DOJ), National Treasury (Treasury) and the
National Prosecuting Authority (NP A) to discuss and consider the implications
of the proposed new salary scales for magistrates, as recommended by the
Commission. The Commission was asked to submit a written account of the
factors, issues and conclusions arrived at, that gave rise to the salary
proposals, in particular, the proposed new motor vehicle allowances for
magistrates and senior magistrates. The submissions of the institutions that
appeared before the Committees, as well as the written submission of the
Commission, are attached to this Report. All documents sourced by the
Committees are similarly attached for completeness.
2. The aim of the hearings was three-fold. Firstly, to inquire into the details
of the proposed implementation plan and its consequences for government, in
particular the availability of a budgetary allocation of approximately R 157
million to defray the cost of such proposed allowance.
Secondly, to determine the effects and implications of the proposed new salary
scales for magistrates and senior magistrates in relation to the broader issue
of disparate salaries for similarly qualified lawyers within the criminal
justice system in particular, as well as within the public sector as a whole,
including relevant Chapter 9 bodies.
Thirdly, to identify problems that currently pertain in the implementation of
the procedure for the determination of the remuneration of magistrates by the
Commission, in an effort to make recommendations on steps needed to be taken at
all levels to ensure that the process will in future take place in accordance
with the legislation governing it.
B. LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK
1. Prior to 1995, magistrates formed part of the public service and as such
their salaries were determined through the collective bargaining process
applicable to members of the public service. From 1995, they were de-linked
from the collective bargaining process and together with judges the Minister
determined their salary increases for Justice and Constitutional Development
(the Minister) after consultation with the Minister of Finance.
In 2003, the Judicial Officers Amendment Act (Act No 28 of 2003), was enacted
as part of an ongoing process of judicial reform aimed, inter alia, at
strengthening judicial independence in our young democracy. The Act amended the
Independent Commission for the Remuneration of Public Office-Bearers Act (Act
No 92 of 1997) (the Commission Act), so as to extend the definition of
"office-bearer" to include judges and magistrates and to make further
consequential amendments. The Act further amended the Magistrates Act (Act No
90 of 1993) (the Magistrates Act) to provide for this new system to regulate
the remuneration of magistrates. The new system for the regulation of the
remuneration of magistrates was aimed at ensuring that magistrates do not
participate in activities associated with the collective bargaining system and
as such gives effect to the views expressed by the Constitutional Court in the
Van Rooyen judgment, where the Court held as follows:
"Judicial officers ought not to be put in a position of having to ...
engage in negotiations with the executive over their salaries. They are
judicial officers, not employees, and cannot and should not resort to industrial
action to advance their interests in their conditions of service. That makes
them vulnerable to having less attention paid to their legitimate concerns in
relation to such matters, than others who can advance their interests through
normal bargaining processes open to them".
2. When determining the remuneration of magistrates, the procedures set out in
section 12 of the Magistrates Act must be read together with the provisions of
the Commission Act that governs the composition and functioning of the Commission.
The procedures that must be followed in determining the remuneration of
magistrates can briefly be summarised into the following steps:
·
The Commission must in order to investigate and consider the remuneration
of magistrates consult with the Minister, the Minister of Finance and the Chief
Justice or a person designated by the Chief Justice (section 12(1)(c) of the
Magistrates Act).
·
When the Commission is deliberating the matter of the remuneration of
judges or magistrates and if the Chairperson of the Commission is a
Constitutional Court judge or a judge, then he or she must refrain from
participating in any of the Commission's deliberations relating to such
remuneration (section 8(3B)(a) read together with section 1(d)(i) and (ii) of the Commission Act).
[Publication of the Recommendations of the Commission]
·
Section 8(6) of the Commission Act stipulates that in arriving at its recommendations
the Commission must take the following factors into account:
"(6)(i) The role, status, duties, functions and responsibilities of the
office-bearers concerned
(ii) the affordability of different levels of remuneration of public office
bearers;
(iii) current principles and levels of remuneration, particularly in respect of
organs of state, and in society generally;
(iv) inflationary increases;
(v) the availability of resources of the State; and
(vi) any other factor which, in the opinion of the said Commission, is
relevant" .
(ill)
(iv) (v) (vi)
·
The recommendations of the Commission must be published in the Gazette at
least once a year in respect of each category of office-bearers and must be
submitted to Parliament before publication (section 8(5) of the
Commission Act).
·
In this regard, the Commission's annual recommendations must be submitted
to Parliament before the publication thereof in the Gazette. In other
words Parliament only needs to be informed about the Commission's recommendations
and does not at this stage have to approve or disapprove thereof.
However, it is at this point that Parliament has, through the Select Committee
and the Portfolio Committee, an opportunity to formulate a view on the
Commission's recommendations, which in turn made be relayed to the Executive
before the President constructs the notice referred to in section 12(1)(a).
·
In this regard it should be noted that while Parliament may have received
the Commission's recommendations before they were published in 2005 (and this
we to date we have not been able establish), the Commission's proposals were
not referred by the Presiding Officers to the relevant Committees for
consideration and report. This may be simply because the Commissions
recommendations were not officially relayed to Parliament.
·
The publication of the Commission's recommendations in the Gazette is
done in addition with the intention to publicise its findings as widely as
possible for public information. The publication of the recommendations of the
Commission in the Gazette should not be confused with the publication of the
President's notice in the Gazette to determine the salaries, allowances or
benefits of magistrates.
·
The Commission then makes recommendations to the President for his or her
consideration as to the salaries, allowances and benefits magistrates are
entitled to following the Commission's investigation (section 12(1)(a)(i) of
the Magistrates Act).
Publication of section 12(I)(a) notice
·
Section 12(1)(a)(i) and (ii) read together with subsection (3) of the
Magistrates Act provide that the President determines the salaries, allowances
or benefits that magistrates are entitled to from time to time by notice in the
Gazette, after taking into consideration the recommendations published
by the Commission and after such notice has been submitted to Parliament
for approval before publication thereof in the Gazette.
·
Parliament must by resolution either approve the notice, whether in whole
or in part, or disapprove the notice (section 12(3)(b)(i) and (ii) of the
Magistrates Act). The notice has to be submitted to Parliament to afford
Parliament an opportunity to comment before any determination may be
published in the Gazette.
·
The President may determine different categories of salaries and salary
scales in respect of different categories of magistrates (section 12(1)(b) of
the Magistrates Act).
·
The remuneration payable to magistrates shall be paid out of the National
Revenue Fund as contemplated in section 213 of the Constitution read with
section 12(4) of the Magistrates Act.
Absence of budgetary allocation to defray proposed new motor vehicle
allowances for magistrates and senior magistrates
1. Any reservations the Committees may have, with the introduction of the
proposed new motor vehicle allowances for magistrates and senior magistrates,
are outweighed by the individual and collective weight afforded three factors
that are relevant in regard to the approval of such allowances.
Firstly, the President of the Republic of South Africa has indicated in Notice
46 of 2005 and the attached Schedule that he favours the granting of such an
allowance to magistrates and senior magistrates.
Secondly, the Minister of Finance has indicated his preparedness to appropriate
the budget allocation of approximately R157m to defray the expenditure related
to the proposed new motor vehicle allowances for magistrates and senior
magistrates, in terms of section 2 I 3 (2)(b ) of the Constitution of the
Republic of South Africa, read with section 12(4) of the Magistrates Act.
Thirdly, the relevant government
departments are in the process of developing a remunerative structure based on
parity to negate the adverse consequences of magistrates' salaries being raised
to disparate levels, with the consequent destabilising effects it may have on
other institutions of justice, especially the National Prosecuting Authority.
2. All factors, especially the above three, having been considered, the
Committees accordingly recommended that both Houses of Parliament approve the
proposed new motor vehicle allowances for magistrates and senior magistrates,
as contained in Notice 46 of 2005, as it appears in the Government Gazette of
24 August 2005, and that the costs thereof be defrayed in terms of section 213
(2)(b ) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, read with section
12(4) of the Magistrates Act .
3. All other proposals recommended in Notice 46 of 2002 have been properly
budgeted for and the adoption thereof present no problem, and is accordingly
recommended.
4. On Wednesday, 7 September 2005, the National Assembly passed a resolution,
which
reads:
That the House approves the draft notice and the schedule received from the
Presidency determining the rate at which salaries and allowances are payable to
the magistrates annually, with effect from 1 April 2005, in terms of section
12(1)(a) of the Magistrates Act (act No 90 of 1993) as amended by section 3 of
the Judicial Officers (Amendment of Conditions of Service) Act (Act No 28 of 2003).
Notice 46 of 2005 appeared in the Government Gazette dated 24 August 2005 and
is attached hereto for ease of reference.
D. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
In making our recommendations the Committees have considered that the
determination of recommendations relating to magistrates' (and judges')
salaries is a relatively new exercise for the Commission. Like all new
institutions and processes, there are opportunities to develop. and learn
collectively from short-comings and challenges.
Most developing democracies have at some time or another faced such and
sometimes worse institutional challenges, and it is out of corrective measures
implemented within constitutional mechanisms that strong and enduring practices
of good governance and institutions have developed. Consequently, after careful
consideration of all the written and oral submissions placed before the
Portfolio Committee and the Select Committee, on the recommendations contained
in Notice 46 of 2005, including the implications of the proposed new motor
vehicle allowance for magistrates and senior magistrates, as recommended by the
Commission; and
(i) despite any procedural shortcomings that may have occurred in relation to
the Commissions work;
(ii) the absence of a budgetary allocation of R157 million to the Department of
Justice and Constitutional Development, to defray the new proposed motor
vehicle allowance to entry level magistrates, magistrates and senior
magistrates; and
(iii) because the relevant Government
Departments are considering proposals to create a salary regime which ensures
parity between the salary packages of legally qualified professionals working
for the State, the Committees make the recommendations hereunder to ensure that
the problems pertaining to the work of the Commission do not recurr.
RECOMMENDATIONS
i. Legislative and procedural compliance
The Independent Commission Bearers for the Remuneration of the Public Office:
1. The Commission must strictly comply with the letter and spirit of the
legislation and regulations applicable to it when considering recommendations
relating to the remuneration of judges and magistrates. The following legal
prescripts must strictly be complied with in future:
1.1 The letter and spirit of section 8(3B) (a) and (b) of the Commission Act
replicated below, must be strictly adhered to and complied with by the
Commission and its Chairperson:
"If the Chairperson of the Commission is an office bearer as defined in
para (d)(i) of the definition of "office-bearer" in section 1, that
member must refrain from participating in any of the Commission's deliberations
relating to the remuneration of any office-bearer as defined in paragraph(d) of
the said definition
(b) Any member of the Commission who may directly or indirectly derive any
benefit
.. from the acceptance by the President of any recommendations by the
Commission, must refrain from participating in any of the Commissions
deliberations relating to such recommendations. "
1.2 When the Commission considers recommendations relating to the remuneration
of:
(i) judges, it must have regard to the provisions of the Judges Remuneration
and Conditions of Employment Act (Act no. 47 of 2001); and
(ii) magistrates, it must have regard to the provisions of the Magistrates Act and the Commission's Act in particular
section 8;
1.3 In formulating recommendations on the remuneration of magistrates, the
Commission must have regard to the levels of remuneration of similarly
qualified individuals in the public and private sectors in accordance with the
provisions of the Commission Act, particularly the prescripts of section 8(
6)(iii);
1.4 In terms of section 8(5) of the Commission Act, read with sections
l2(1)(a)(ii) and 12(3) of the Magistrates Act, the recommendations of the
Commission relating to the remuneration of magistrates must be submitted to
Parliament before publication thereof.
1.5 The Commission must in future make recommendations bearing in the mind the
availability of resources within the budget framework, as provided for in the
Estimate of National Expenditure;(i.e: see section 8(6)(v)
2. The Commission should receive a single submission on behalf of the
magistracy from the Chief Justice or a person designated by the Chief Justice
relating to recommendations in respect of the remuneration of magistrates, in
accordance with section l2(1)(c)(ii), read with section 8(3) of the Magistrates
Act, and should not consult with or receive submissions from individual or
groups of magistrates relating to the remuneration of magistrates, as seems to
have become the practice; considering the injunction of the Van Rooyen case
that collective bargaining practices should be discouraged at this level;
3. The Commission must meaningfully consult with the Ministers of Finance and
Justice and Constitutional Development in terms of section 12 (1)(c)(i) of the
Magistrates Act, when considering recommendations in respect of the
remuneration of magistrates. The process of consultation should be made more
formal and all substantive interactions should be through written
communications ;
4. When consulting the Ministers as referred to in paragraph 1.4 above, the
Commission must do so with a view to reaching consensus on the recommendations
relating to the determination of the remuneration of magistrates;
5. The Commission's recommendations to the President should reflect all the
relevant views/submissions received relating to the recommendations in respect
of the remuneration of magistrates, especially when any or both of the above
Ministers disagree with any aspect of the recommendations made by the
Commission;
6. The Commission must construct a system for formulating recommendations on
the remuneration of magistrates that is objectively understood within the
matrix of remuneration and benefits applicable to other members of the
Judiciary and other similarly qualified professionals in the employ of the
State.
2.THE OFFICE OF THE CHIEF JUSTICE
It is recommended that the office of the Chief Justice must devise an
internal forum within the Judiciary aimed at facilitating a single submission
to the Commission relating to the remuneration of judges and magistrates, as
indicated in paragraph 2 of the recommendations pertaining to the Commission,
above.
3. PARLIAMENT
It is also recommended that any proposal in terms of section 8(5) of the
Commission Act and any notice referred to in Section 12(l)(a)(i) of the
Magistrates Act, submitted to Parliament, must be referred by the Presiding
Officers to the Portfolio Committee and the Select Committee jointly, for consideration
and report. The report and recommendations of the Committees must thereafter be
tabled for adoption in the relevant Houses. Thereafter, Parliament's
recommendations or comments must immediately be forwarded to the President.
Only after these processes have been followed, and upon approval by both Houses
of Parliament, should the final determination be published in the Government
Gazette.
4. GENERAL
Although not relevant to this enquiry, any of the procedural shortcomings
that are pertinent to the development of recommendations relating to the
remuneration of judges should be immediately reviewed by the relevant
institutions.
5. Policy Measures: The development or adoption of policy measures arising
from the expansion of travel allowances to magistrates previously excluded
Magistrates are appointed generally at the point that they have acquired at
least 5 years post university experience. In their submission to the Committees
the NP A pointed out that a prosecutor with at least five years post university
experience currently earned R139 383 compared to the R313 738 per annum for a
similarly qualified magistrate (i.e. a trainee magistrate, without the present
proposed salary packages having been taken into account). This amounts
currently to a differential of R174 355, in salaries for lawyers who are
equally qualified and experienced. The newly approved allowance for entry level
magistrates will increase the already significant salary gap between entry
level magistrates and senior prosecutors with five years and more experience,
by approximately R70 000.00.
This will have the likely effect of further significantly exacerbating an
already existing atmosphere of instability in institutions administering
justice. In fact, according to the NP A, they lose between 30 and 40 such
experienced prosecutors annually to the magistracy.
Add the further 40 new magistrates posts created this year which still need to
be filled and they may lose, at least, between 70 and 80 such experienced
prosecutors this year alone.
The Commission in its written submission reported that "it is in the
process of conducting a major review of public office bearer remuneration, and
intends making recommendations for the implementation of an integrated fair and
transparent total cost to employer remuneration structure for all office
bearers"(page 2, paragraph 2). The Department of Justice reported that it
has just completed a framework for an integrated remuneration dispensation for
its legally qualified professionals.
This process is aimed at addressing the historical inequities existing in the
current system, and introducing parity and synergy. It was further reported
that a similar exercise is currently being undertaken by the DPSA in regard to
personnel performing legal functions throughout the public sector.
While these developments are to be welcomed, it is clear that if these
processes are not integrated or synergized, we will once again face a situation
where disparate salary packages have to be implemented for similarly qualified
legal professionals in the public domain.
The Committees thus recommend that:
5.1 The Department of Justice and Constitutional Development, Treasury and
Department of Public Service and Administration (and where necessary, the
Commission) should work together to design a remuneration system that will
ensure parity between the salary packages of legally qualified professionals
working for the State. In this manner, eradicating or at the very least
minimising the further destabilisation of institutions administering justice
through personnel movements chasing after higher salaries, sometimes even in
the same Department.
5.2 The Department of Justice and Constitutional Development and Treasury
having been engaged in a process that is aimed at developing a comprehensive
remunerative structure based on parity for legal professionals in the Justice
sector, must table their proposals and implementation plan, with Parliament, by
I August 2006.
5.3 The Department of Justice and Constitutional Development must, urgently,
table in Parliament amendments to the regulations for the official travel of
all magistrates operating within clusters, in order to prevent potential abuse
of claims relating to S&T's, accommodation and travel allowances of the
nature that was disclosed to the Committees during the hearings. In particular,
to examine the legality and amend the regulations, if necessary, of the further
payments of allowances or benefits to magistrates, for travel purposes, after 1
April 2005, outside the motor vehicle allowances, which are now being approved
for all magistrates, backdated to I April 2005. Such regulations must be tabled
in Parliament, before August 2006.
5.4 Review present legislation
It is recommended that the relevant pieces of legislation considered in
this report should be reviewed in accordance with the findings and
recommendations of this report, with the objective of simplifying and
clarifying the procedure, in particular, the role of Parliament. The review
should include a mechanism requiring the executive to revise its proposal and
resubmitting it to Parliament should Parliament disapprove the notice in terms
of section 12(3)(b)(i) and (ii) of the Magistrate Act.
6. Engendering professionalism in the Magistracy
During the time that it has taken to convene the parliamentary hearings the
Committees have been disturbed at the behaviour of some magistrates who have in
written and oral form criticised Parliament's processes and even questioned the
constitutionality of Parliament's role. Generally, Parliament should not be
above reproach, but when these criticisms are voiced by Judicial Officers in an
effort to enhance their personal circumstances by advocating for higher
salaries in stark contrast by the prescripts laid down by the Constitutional
Court in the Van Rooyen judgment, these reproaches have the distinct
flavour of unabashed avarice.
Taken to its extreme the media covered stories of certain magistrates absenting
themselves from their courts during this time, on the pretext of being under
stress due to the possibility of the new motor vehicle allowances not being
approved. This, if true was a lightly veiled attempt to pressure MPs to
approve the new salary dispensation. The Committees were also made aware of
meetings convened in court
buildings ostensibly to organise in protest against any potential negative
outcome of the Parliamentary process.
In matters concerning the Judiciary the Committees remain guided by the
principles and guidelines determined by the Constitutional Court, especially in
the Van Rooyen
case.
The actions of some magistrates, in contravention of the principles in the Van
Rooyen judgment, are unbecoming a judicial officer and have brought the
Judiciary into disrepute.
The Committees accordingly recommend:
6.1 that the Magistrates Commission conduct an urgent and full investigation
into any absenteeism from work without valid reason; or any type of
protestation, including any "go-slow" action, on the part of any
magistrate, since the 13th of September 2005, to which ostensibly relate to the
process of final approval of the new salary regime by Parliament, including the
reported absenteeism, due to alleged stress (particularly in the Eastern Cape);
and
6.2 Submit a Report on the individual magistrates concerned, identifying the
disciplinary measures adopted or proposed to be adopted in each instance,
including relevant medical certificates, for all magistrates booked off during
this period for stress or stress-related illness by 01 December 2006
Conclusion
The Committees express the hope that the report provides guidance and
assistance to all the role-players concerned in our mutual efforts to develop
and build our State Institutions. It is hoped that all criticism levelled are
received in this spirit and that our democratic state continues to flourish in
the wake of the constructive deliberations and engagement.
Dated at Cape Town for the Select
Committee on Security and
Constitutional Affairs and the Portfolio Committee on Justice and
Constitutional Development.
The Honourable K Mokoena (Chairperson)
The Honourable F Chohan (Chairperson)